Canaan Valley

National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive Draft Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and Conservation Plan and

Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment

May 2010 May 2010

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Front cover:

Freeland Beaver Pond

Frank Ceravalo

Cheat Mountain Salamander

Kent Mason

Canaan Valley Wild School

Vern Patterson

Red Admiral Butterfly

USFWS

Back cover:

Freeland Beaver Pond

Frank Ceravalo

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of 

the American people. The Service manages the 150-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System 

comprised of more than 550 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. 

It also operates 70 national fish hatcheries and 81 ecological services field stations. The agency 

enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant 

fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered 

Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the 

Federal Assistance Program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on 

fishing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions and 

set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify 

the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are 

sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service 

strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment 

for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.

This blue goose, designed by J.N. 

“Ding” Darling, has become the 

symbol of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System.
i

Canaan Valley 

National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment

May 2010 

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge showcases the largest contiguous, high 

elevation wetland complex in West Virginia and harbors a vast assemblage of 

rare plants and animals normally associated with more northern latitudes. The 

refuge conserves, protects, and manages a mosaic of wetland, forested, and 

early successional habitat that supports migratory birds and threatened and 

endangered species. As a steward of a significant portion of the headwaters, the 

Refuge ensures the integrity of the natural resources of the upper Blackwater 

River watershed. Refuge habitats and wildlife are conserved and managed 

through research and collaboration with federal, state, and local conservation 

partners.

As an integral part of the surrounding community, the Refuge provides high 

quality, safe, wholesome, and diverse opportunities for education and recreation, 

especially hunting and wildlife observation. The refuge experience fosters public 

interest in the beauty and unique character of Canaan Valley, an appreciation 

of fish and wildlife ecology, plant ecology, and stewardship of the natural world. 

Visitors develop a greater understanding and appreciation for the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and refuge management programs, and for the 

importance of protecting lands for wildlife conservation.

Refuge Vision 

Statement

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
iii

Canaan Valley 

National Wildlife Refuge

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment

May 2010

Type of Action: Administrative — Development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

Location: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Tucker and Grant Counties, WV

Administrative 

Headquarters:

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

HC 70 Box 200

Davis, WV 26260

Responsible Official: Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director, Region 5, Northeast

For Further Information: Beth Goldstein, Natural Resource Planner

Northeast Regional Office

300 Westgate Center Drive

Hadley, MA 01035

(413) 253-8564

northeastplanning@fws.gov

This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes four 

alternatives for managing the 16,183-acre Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge over the next 15 years. This 

document also contains nine appendixes that provide additional information supporting our analysis. Following 

is a brief overview of each alternative:

Alternative A: This alternative is referred to as our “No Action” or “Current Management” alternative, as 

required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under this alternative, no major changes to our 

biological, public use or administrative management practices would occur.

Alternative B: This is the Service’s preferred alternative. It represents the objectives and strategies 

recommended by the planning team for best achieving the refuge’s purposes, vision and goals, and responding 

to public issues. In this alternative we identify focal species whose life and growth requirements guide 

management activities for each habitat type objective. Alternative B also increases opportunities for priority 

public uses. 

Alternative C: In this alternative, biological objectives are similar to Alternative B, but opportunities for 

priority public uses are expanded even more than in Alternative B. 

Alternative D: Biological objectives in this alternative focus on managing for historic natural communities. 

Opportunities for priority public uses increase moderately from Alternative A, but not as much as in 

Alternatives B and C.

Summary
Table of Contents

Table of Contents v

Chapters Refuge Vision Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Chapter 1 Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

The Purpose of and Need for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

Regional Context and Project Analysis Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning. . . . . . . . 1-3

Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-14

Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-Down” Plans). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-16

Refuge Vision Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-16

Refuge Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-17

The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-17

Issues and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-19

Plan Amendment and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-25

Chapter 2 Affected Environment

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

Physical Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

Regional Economic Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

Recreation and Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

The Refuge and its Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

Vegetation and Habitat Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

Fisheries Habitats and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28

Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

Special Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37

Public Access, Education and Recreational Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-44

Chapter 3 Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

Actions Common to All of the Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

Alternative A. Current Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-36

Alternative C. Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-92

Alternative D. Focus on Managing for Historical Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-106

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-123

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

Effects on Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

Effects on Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

Effects on the Social Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27

Effects on Upland Habitats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-42

Effects on Freshwater Wetland Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-54

Effects on Fisheries Habitats and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-68

Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-71
Table of Contents

Table of Contents

vi

Effects of Public Use and Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-79

Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-88

Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-90

Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-92

Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination with Others

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

Public Involvement Summary and Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

What Happens Next?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

Chapter 6 List of Preparers

Members of the Core Planning Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

Assistance from Other Service Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

Chapter 7 Glossary (including list of acronyms)

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Glos-1

Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Glos-10

Chapter 8 Bibliography

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibl-1

Chapters (cont.)

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences (cont.)

Appendixes

Appendix A Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. . . . . . .A-1

Appendix B Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations

Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Finding of Appropriateness Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses. . . . . . . . B-1

Finding of Appropriateness Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate 

Priority Public Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3

Finding of Appropriateness Commercial Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing 

to Facilitate Priority Public Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5

Finding of Appropriateness Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . B-9

Finding of Appropriateness Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . B-11

Finding of Appropriateness Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management 

Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-15

Finding of Appropriateness Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat . B-19

Finding of Appropriateness Maintenance and Use of NOAA Weather Station . . B-21

Finding of Appropriateness Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel . . B-23

Compatibility Determination Public Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-25
Table of Contents

Table of Contents vii

Appendixes (cont.)

Appendix J Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations (cont.)

Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations(cont.)

Appendix C Wilderness Review

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Phase I – Wilderness Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Summary of Wilderness Inventory Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3

Appendix D Wild and Scenic River Review

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D-1

Phase I – Wild and Scenic River Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D-3

Appendix E Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management under 

Alternative B

Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Appendix F Refuge Operations and Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset Management 

Maintenance System (SAMMS)

Refuge Operations and Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset Management 

Maintenance System (SAMMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

Appendix G Staffing Charts

Current Approved Staff (Alternative A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

Proposed Staff (Alternative B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-2

Proposed Staff (Alternative C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-3

Proposed Staff (Alternative D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-4

Compatibility Determination Public Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-45

Compatibility Determination Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental 

Education, and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-59

Compatibility Determination Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses. . . . . . . B-73

Compatibility Determination Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to 

Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-89

Compatibility Determination Commercial Cross Country Skiing and 

Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses. . . . B-99

Compatibility Determination Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority 

Public Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-113

Compatibility Determination Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . B-131

Compatibility Determination Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management 

Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-143

Compatibility Determination Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat . B-155

Compatibility Determination Maintenance and Use of NOAA Weather Station . . B-163

Compatibility Determination Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel . . B-169

Compatibility Determination Maintenance of a Utility Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . B-175
Table of Contents

Table of Contents

viii

Appendix H Economic Impacts of Each Alternative

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

Regional Economic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Activities . . . . . . . . . . . H-5

Economic Impacts of Alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-6

Economic Impacts of Alternative B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-11

Economic Impacts of Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-14

Economic Impacts of Alternative D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-17

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-19

References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-19

Appendix I ESA Section 7 Consultation

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

List of Tables

Table 2.1. Local and regional population estimates and characteristics.. . . . . . . 2-7

Table 2.2. 2006 full-time and part-time employment for West Virginia, 

Tucker County and Elkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

Table 2.3. Income, unemployment and poverty estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

Table 2.4. Land acquisition history for Canaan Valley refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

Table 2.5. Refuge budgets from 2002 to 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

Table 2.6. Refuge revenue sharing payments for 2001 through 2007. . . . . . . . . . 2-16

Table 2.7. Habitat types within the current refuge acquisition boundary. . . . . . . 2-18

Table 2.8. Species and volume of hardwoods removed during 1998-2001 by 

Allegheny Power.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25

Table 2.9. Species and volume of hardwoods removed during 1995-1997 by 

Allegheny Power.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26

Table 3.1. Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative . . . . . 3-123

Table 4.1. Impact contexts for Service actions under CCP at 

Canaan Valley Refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

Table 4.2. Alternative B Proposed Construction Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

Table 4.3. Alternative C Proposed Construction Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

Table 4.4. Economic impacts of all refuge management activities for 

alternative A (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

Table 4.5. Summary of all refuge management activities for 

alternative B (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24

Table 4.6. Change in economic impacts under alternative B compared to 

alternative A (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and its 

relationship to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. . . . . 1-19
Table of Contents

Table of Contents ix

Table 4.7. Summary of all refuge management activities for 

alternative C (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

Table 4.8. Change in economic impacts under alternative C compared to 

alternative A (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-25

Table 4.9. Summary of all refuge management activities for 

alternative D (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26

Table 4.10. Change in economic impacts under alternative D compared to 

alternative A (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-26

Table 4.11. Trail Miles and Designated Uses for each Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-84

Table 4.12 Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-92

Table A.1. Resources of Concern for Canaan Valley NWR (See table A.2 for 

bird species) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Table A.2. Resource of Concern for Canaan Valley NWR-Migratory Birds. . . . . . A-6

Table A-3. Additional migratory birds comprising >1% of all captures at AFBMO 

not listed in any plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8

Table C-1. Wilderness Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5

Table D.1. Classification Criteria for Wild, Scenic and Recreational River Area1 . D-9

Table D.2. Eligible Rivers within the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge . . . D-10

Table F.1. Refuge Operations and Needs System (RONS) table for 

Fiscal Year 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

Table F.2. Service Asset Management Maintenance System (SAMMS) 

table from Fiscal Year 2009. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-2

Table H.1. Local and regional population estimates and characteristics.. . . . . . . H-2

Table H.2. 2006 Full-time and part-time employment for West Virginia, 

Tucker County, and Elkins.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-3

Table H.3. Income, unemployment, and poverty estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-4

Table H.4. Annual impacts from Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments for 

Alternative A (2005$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-7

Table H.5. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for Alternative A. . H-7

Table H.6. Annual impacts of non-local visitor spending for Alternative 

A (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-9

Table H.7. Current approved staff (Alternative A). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-9

Table H.8. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge 

personnel (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-10

Table H.9. Local economic impacts of refuge related purchases for 

Alternative A (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-10

Table H.10. Economic impacts of all refuge management activities for 

Alternative A (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-11

Table H.11. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for 

Alternative B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-11

Table H.12. Annual impacts of non-local visitor spending for 

Alternative B (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-12

Table H.13. Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge 

personnel for Alternative B (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-12

List of Tables (cont.)
Table of Contents

Table of Contents

x

Table H.14. Local economic impacts of refuge related purchases for 

Alternative B (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-13

Table H.15. Summary of all refuge management activities for 

Alternative B (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-13

Table H.16. Change in economic impacts under Alternative B compared to 

Alternative A (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-14

Table H.17. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for 

Alternative C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-14

Table H.18. Annual impacts of non-local visitor spending for 

Alternative C (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-15

Table H.19. Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel for 

Alternative C (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-15

Table H.20. Local economic impacts of refuge related purchases for 

Alternative C (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-16

Table H.21. Summary of all refuge management activities for 

Alternative C (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-16

Table H.22. Change in economic impacts under Alternative C compared to 

Alternative A (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-17

Table H.23. Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel for 

Alternative D (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-17

Table H.24. Summary of all refuge management activities for 

Alternative D (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-18

Table H.25. Change in economic impacts under Alternative D compared to 

Alternative A (2006$). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-18

List of Tables (cont.)

List of Maps Map 1-1 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge: Project Analysis Area. . . . . . . 1-4

Map 2-1 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge: Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . 2-13

Map 3-1 Alternative A – Proposed Habitat Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33

Map 3-2 Alternative A – Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34

Map 3-3 Alternative A – Hunt Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35

Map 3-4 Alternative B – Proposed Habitat Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-89

Map 3-5 Alternative B – Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-90

Map 3-6 Alternative B – Hunt Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-91

Map 3-7 Alternative C – Proposed Habitat Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-103

Map 3-8 Alternative C – Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-104

Map 3-9 Alternative C – Hunt Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-105

Map 3-10 Alternative D - Proposed Habitat Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-121

Map 3-11 Alternative D - Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-122

Map B-1 Public Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-43

Map B-2 Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-58

Map C-1 Wilderness Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4

Map D-1 Wild and Scenic Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-8
Umbagog Lake

Chapter 1

Introduction and Purpose of and Need 

For Action

■ Introduction

■ The Purpose of and Need for Action

■ Regional Context and Project Analysis Area

■ The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates 

Guiding Planning

■ Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History

■ Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-Down” Plans)

■ Refuge Vision Statement

■ Refuge Goals

■ The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process

■ Issues and Opportunities

■ Plan Amendment and Revision

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-1

Introduction

This draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental 

Assessment (EA) for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) 

combines two documents required by federal laws:

■ a CCP, which creates a vision and serves as a mid- to long-term planning 

document, pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966 

(16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act) (Public Law 105-57; 111 

Stat. 1253); and,

■ an EA, required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 83 Stat. 852), for the purposes of assessing the impacts 

associated with the alternatives developed by this CCP and obtaining public 

input in examining them.

The alternatives provide a range of potential goals and objectives that the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) could use to manage the refuge, including 

a status quo approach. The CCP also conforms to Service policy and legal 

mandates (see “National and Regional Mandates, Policies, and Plans Guiding the 

Project,” below).

Our regional director’s final decision, based on this combined draft CCP/EA 

document, will produce a CCP to guide management decisions and actions on the 

refuge during the next 15 years. We will also use it as a tool to help the public, 

natural resource agencies of West Virginia, and our other conservation partners, 

understand and support refuge management priorities.

Chapter 1, “The Purpose of and Need for Action,” sets the stage for chapters 2 

through 4. It

■ describes the purpose of and need for a CCP/EA for the refuge,

■ identifies national and regional mandates and plans that influenced this 

document,

■ highlights establishing purposes and land acquisition history of the refuge,

■ presents our vision and goals for the refuge,

■ explains the planning process we followed in developing this document, and

■ describes the key issues, concerns, and opportunities it addresses.

Chapter 2, “Description of the Affected Environment,” describes the physical, 

biological, and human environment.

Chapter 3, “Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred 

Alternative,” describes varying management strategies for meeting refuge goals 

and objectives and responding to key issues of conservation and public use.

Chapter 4, “Environmental Consequences,” evaluates the environmental 

consequences of implementing each of the proposed management alternatives.

Chapter 5, “Consultation and Coordination with Others,” summarizes how we 

involved the public and our conservation partners in the planning process.

Chapter 6, “List of Preparers,” credits Service and non-Service contributors.

Nine appendixes provide additional documentation and reference information we 

used in compiling this document.

Introduction
1-2 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Our goal, which is directly connected with the Refuge Improvement Act, is to 

develop a CCP for the Canaan Valley refuge that best achieves the purposes, 

vision, and goals of the refuge and best contributes to the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System); adheres to relevant Service 

policies and mandates; addresses key public issues and conservation issues; and 

incorporates sound principles of fish and wildlife science.

As NEPA requires, this draft CCP/EA evaluates a reasonable range of 

management alternatives and describes their foreseeable impacts on the 

socioeconomic, physical, cultural, and biological environments in the project area. 

We designed each alternative with the potential to be fully developed into a final 

CCP.

Developing a CCP is vital for the future management of every national wildlife 

refuge. The purpose of this CCP is to provide strategic management direction for 

the next 15 years by

■ providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat, wildlife, 

visitor services, staffing, and facilities;

■ providing state agencies, refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners with a clear 

understanding for the reasons for management actions;

■ ensuring refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the Refuge 

System and legal mandates;

■ ensuring the compatibility of current and future public use;

■ providing long-term continuity and direction for refuge management; and,

■ providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and annual budget 

requests.

There are several reasons why we need this CCP. First, the Refuge 

Improvement Act requires us to write a CCP for every national wildlife refuge to 

help fulfill the mission of the Refuge System. 

Second, the refuge’s 1994 Station Management Plan is 15 years old. Since that 

document’s publication, the refuge land base has grown significantly, and its 

management priorities have evolved. The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), which 

was federally listed as endangered in 1967, and the Cheat Mountain salamander 

(Plethodon nettingi), which was federally listed as threatened in 1989, are both 

found on the refuge and are now management priorities. The West Virginia 

northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) was removed from the 

federal list of endangered species in September 2008 but is still of management 

concern since it also exists on the refuge. 

Third, we have developed strong partnerships vital to our continued success, and 

we must convey our vision for the refuge to those partners and the public. 

All of these reasons clearly underscore the need for the strategic direction a 

CCP provides. To help us resolve management issues and public concerns, our 

planning process will incorporates input from natural resource agencies of West 

Virginia, affected communities, individuals, organizations, our partners, and the 

public.

The Purpose of and 

Need for Action

The Purpose of and Need For Action
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-3

The refuge, located in eastern Tucker County, West Virginia, sits in the Canaan 

Valley, 3,200 feet above sea level in the Allegheny Mountains (see map 1-1).

On September 11, 1994, 86 acres of land were purchased to establish the Canaan 

Valley refuge. This was the 500th refuge created by the Service. More land was 

acquired over the following years and the refuge grew to approximately 3,000 

acres. In 2002 the Service bought 12,000 acres from Allegheny Power Systems, 

bringing the refuge to its current size of about 16,183 acres.

Canaan Valley contains a wetlands complex of about 8,400 acres, making it the 

largest wetlands system in West Virginia. Of these total wetlands, 5,573 acres 

are located within the refuge.

The headwaters of the Little Blackwater River, 13 miles of the Blackwater River, 

and many miles of other tributaries are also within the refuge boundaries.

Although the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as 

amended by the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 and each refuge’s purpose 

provide the foundation for management, the administration of national wildlife 

refuges conforms to a variety of other federal laws (including the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act (ESA), Wilderness Act, Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act, National Historic Preservation Act), Executive Orders, 

treaties, interstate compacts, and regulations pertaining to the conservation and 

protection of natural and cultural resources. The section below describes some 

of these policies and mandates that have played a critical role in our planning 

process. The “Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the USFWS” 

provides a full list (online at http://www.fws.gov/laws/Lawsdigest.html). 

The Service, part of the Department of the Interior, administers the Refuge 

System. The Service’s mission is

“Working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife 

and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people.”

Congress entrusts the Service with the conservation 

and protection of national resources such as migratory 

birds and fish, federally listed endangered or 

threatened species, inter-jurisdictional fish, and certain 

marine mammals. The Service also manages national 

wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries, enforces 

federal wildlife laws and international treaties on 

importing and exporting wildlife, assists with state 

fish and wildlife programs, and helps other countries 

develop wildlife conservation programs.

The Service manual contains the standing and 

continuing directives to implement its authorities, 

responsibilities, and activities. You can access it at 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/direct.html. 

Regional Context and 

Project Analysis Area

The Service and 

the Refuge System 

Policies and 

Mandates Guiding 

Planning

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and its Mission

Freeland Tract Sign

Ken Sturm/USFWS

The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning

1-3
1-4 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge: Project Analysis Area Map 1-1
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-5

The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set 

aside specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting ecosystems. Over 550 

national wildlife refuges encompassing more than 150 million acres are part of 

the national network today. Refuges are found in every state and several island 

territories. Each year, more than 40 million visitors hunt, fish, observe and 

photograph wildlife, or participate in environmental education or interpretation 

activities on refuges.

In 1997, Congress passed the Refuge Improvement Act. That act establishes 

a unifying mission for the Refuge System, a new process for determining 

compatible public use activities on refuges, and the requirement to prepare CCPs 

for all refuges. It states that first, the Refuge System must focus on wildlife 

conservation. It further states that the mission of the Refuge System, coupled 

with the purpose(s) for which a refuge was established, will provide the principal 

management direction for that refuge.

The mission of the Refuge System is

“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

 management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

 plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

 present and future generations of Americans.” (Refuge Improvement Act; 

 Public Law 105-57)

In addition, the Service released its mission policy. Among its main points are 

conserving a diversity of fish, wildlife, plants, and a network of their habitats; 

conserving unique ecosystems within the nation; providing and enhancing 

opportunities for compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation; and fostering public 

understanding and appreciation of those resources.

Fulfilling the Promise

A yearlong process involving teams of Service employees who examined the 

Refuge System within the framework of “Wildlife and Habitat, People and 

Leadership” culminated with “Fulfilling the Promise: The National Wildlife 

Refuge System,” a vision for the Refuge System. The first-ever Refuge System 

Conference in Keystone, CO, in October 1998 was attended by every refuge 

manager in the country, other Service employees, and scores of conservation 

organizations. Many “Promises Teams” formed to develop strategies for 

implementing the 42 recommendations of the conference report. Information 

from such teams as wildlife and habitat, goals and objectives, strategic growth of 

the Refuge System, invasive species, and inventory and monitoring helped guide 

the development of the goals, strategies, and actions in this draft CCP/EA.

Refuge System Planning Policy

This policy establishes requirements and guidance for Refuge System planning, 

including CCPs and step-down management plans. It states that we will manage 

all refuges in accordance with an approved CCP which, when implemented, will 

achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and, 

where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge 

System; help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System 

and the National Wild and Scenic River System; and conform to other mandates 

[Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (602 FW 1,2,3)].

The National Wildlife 

Refuge System and its 

Mission and Policies

The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning

1-5
1-6 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy

This policy provides a national framework and procedure for refuge managers to 

follow in deciding whether uses are appropriate on a refuge. It also clarifies and 

expands on the compatibility policy (603 FW 2.10D), by describing when refuge 

managers should deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. When 

we find a use is appropriate, we must then determine if the use is compatible 

before we allow it on a refuge. This policy applies to all proposed and existing 

uses in the Refuge System only when we have jurisdiction over the use, and does 

not apply to refuge management activities or situations where reserved rights 

or legal mandates provide we must allow certain uses (603 FW 1). Appendix 

B further describes the Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy and describes its 

relationship to the CCP process. To view the policy and regulations online, visit 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw1.html.

Compatibility Policy

Federal law and Service policy provide the direction and planning framework to 

protect the Refuge System from incompatible or harmful human activities and 

ensure that visitors can enjoy its lands and waters. The Refuge Improvement 

Act is the key legislation regarding management of public uses and compatibility. 

The act declares that all existing or proposed public uses of a refuge must be 

compatible with refuge purpose(s). The refuge manager determines compatibility 

after evaluating an activity’s potential impact on refuge resources, and ensuring 

that it supports the Refuge System mission and does not materially detract from, 

or interfere with, refuge purpose(s). The act also stipulates six wildlife-dependent 

public uses that are to receive enhanced consideration in CCPs: hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography and environmental education and 

interpretation. Compatibility determinations remain in effect for 10 or 15 years, 

depending on whether the use is a priority public use, but may be revisited sooner 

than the mandatory expiration date if new information reveals unacceptable 

adverse impacts or safety concerns. The compatibility determinations for 

the Canaan Valley refuge can be found in appendix B along with additional 

information on the process. To view the policy and regulations online, visit 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw2.html.

Maintaining Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 

Policy

This policy provides guidance on maintaining or restoring the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System, including 

the protection of a broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found 

in refuge ecosystems. It provides refuge managers with a process for evaluating 

the best management direction to prevent the additional degradation of 

environmental conditions and to restore lost or severely degraded environmental 

components. It also provides guidelines for dealing with external threats to 

the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of a refuge and 

its ecosystem (601 FW 3). To view the policy and regulations online, visit 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/601fw3.html.

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Policy

The Refuge Improvement Act establishes that compatible wildlife dependent 

recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation) are the priority general public 

uses of the Refuge System, and are to receive enhanced consideration over 

other public uses in refuge planning and management. The Wildlife Dependent 

Recreation Policy (605 FW 1) explains how we will provide visitors with 

opportunities for those priority public uses on units of the Refuge System 

and how we will facilitate them. We are incorporating this policy as Part 605, 

chapters 1-7, of the Service Manual. Also, the General Guidelines for WildlifeThe Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-7

Dependent Recreation, as written in the Service Manual, says we will strive to 

meet the following criteria for a quality wildlife-dependent recreation program: 

1) promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities; 2) promotes 

compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior; 3) 

minimizes or eliminates conflict with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals 

or objectives in an approved plan; 4) minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreation; 5) minimizes conflicts with neighboring 

landowners; 6) promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of 

the American people; 7) promotes resource stewardship and conservation; 8) 

promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s 

natural resources and our role in managing and conserving these resources; 

9) provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife; 10) uses 

facilities that are accessible to people and blend into the natural setting; and 11) 

uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. To view the policy 

and regulations online, visit http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw1.html.

This section describes existing regional, state, and local resource plans that 

directly influenced development of this draft CCP/EA. 

Bird Conservation Region 28

North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a coalition of a great 

number of governmental agencies, private organizations, academic organizations, 

and private industry leaders in Canada, the United States, and Mexico. It was 

formed to address the need for coordinated bird conservation that will benefit 

“all birds in all habitats.” NABCI aims to ensure the long-term health of North 

America’s native bird populations by increasing the effectiveness of existing 

and new bird conservation initiatives, enhancing coordination among the 

initiatives, and fostering greater cooperation among the continent’s three national 

governments and their peoples.

NABCI’s approach to bird conservation is regionally based, biologically driven, 

and landscape-oriented (NABCI 2000). It draws together the major bird 

conservation plans already in existence for waterbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, 

and landbirds, fills in knowledge gaps, and builds a coalition of groups and 

agencies to execute the plans.

Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are ecologically 

distinct regions in North America with similar bird 

communities, habitats, and resource management 

issues. The Canaan Valley refuge lies within BCR 28 

(The Appalachian Mountains). This region includes 

the Blue Ridge, the Ridge and Valley Region, the 

Cumberland Plateau, the Ohio Hills, and the Allegheny 

Plateau. Ecologically this is a transitional area, with 

forested ridges grading from primarily oak-hickory 

forests in the south to northern hardwood forests 

further north. Pine-oak woodlands and barrens and 

hemlock ravine forests are also important along ridges, 

whereas bottomland and riparian forests are important 

in the valleys, which are now largely cleared for 

agricultural and urban development. BCR 28 is further 

broken down into smaller physiographic regions by 

Partners in Flight (see next page).

Other Management 

Guidance

The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning

1-7

Canada goose, Branta canadensis

Ken Sturm/USFWS
1-8 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

The primary purposes of BCRs, proposed by the mapping team in 1998 and 

approved in concept by the U.S. Committee in 1999, are to

■ facilitate communication among the bird conservation initiatives;

■ systematically and scientifically apportion the U.S. into conservation units;

■ facilitate a regional approach to bird conservation;

■ promote new, expanded, or restructured partnerships; and

■ identify overlapping or conflicting conservation priorities.

As integrated bird conservation progresses in North America, BCRs should 

ultimately function as one of the primary units within which biological foundation 

issues are resolved, landscape configuration of sustainable habitats is designed, 

and priority projects are originated.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (update 2004)

This updated plan among the United States, Canada, and Mexico outlines their 

strategy to sustain or restore waterfowl populations through habitat protection, 

restoration, and enhancement. The 2004 update to the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) outlines population goals for 14 species, 

species groups, or races of ducks and 34 populations within 7 species of geese 

(NAWMP 2004). As with the original 1986 plan, its implementation will be 

accomplished at the U.S. regional level in 11 habitat joint venture areas and 

three species joint ventures: arctic goose, black duck, and sea duck. Habitat joint 

ventures are the primary mechanisms for accomplishing plan objectives. Species 

joint ventures are intended to assist plan implementation by improving scientific 

information necessary to effectively manage waterfowl populations. Joint venture 

partnerships involving federal, state and provincial governments, tribal nations, 

local businesses, conservation organizations, and individual citizens have been 

assembled to facilitate and coordinate protecting habitat within the joint venture 

areas. To implement the plan, these population goals have been translated 

into habitat protection goals. The 2004 update includes the habitat protection 

and restoration estimates (in acres) established by each habitat joint venture 

partnership. 

Canaan Valley refuge lies within the boundaries of the newly formed Appalachian 

Mountains Joint Venture (AMJV). Until recently, the refuge was considered part 

of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV), and it was the ACJV that we relied 

upon for assistance during this planning process. However, in the future, we will 

look to the AMJV for guidance on and suggestions for bird management options. 

Originally, the ACJV focused on protecting and managing priority wetland 

habitats for migration, wintering, and production of waterfowl, with special 

consideration to black ducks. Benefits to other wildlife in the joint venture area 

were also included, but were secondary to waterfowl. This goal has since been 

expanded. Now the ACJV “is a partnership focused on the conservation of 

habitat for native birds in the Atlantic Flyway of the United States from Maine 

south to Puerto Rico.” (ACJV 2004). This broadened perspective is consistent 

with other major national and continental bird conservation plans and the 

NABCI discussed previously in this chapter. The ACJV coordinates planning 

and delivery of bird habitat conservation in this area to improve efficiency and 

efficacy of recovery and restoration efforts using a sound biological foundation. 

The AMJV shares a similar methodology and mission: “to restore and sustain 

viable populations of native birds and their habitats in the Appalachian 

The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-9

Mountains Joint Venture through effective, collaborative partnerships” 

(AMJV 2007). 

You can access the various plans (including the NAWMP plan and updates) at 

http://www.nawmp.ca/eng/pub_e.html. We used them as a basis for evaluating 

waterfowl and other native bird management opportunities on the refuge.

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area 12, MidAtlantic Ridge and Valley

In 1990, Partners in Flight (PIF) was conceived as a voluntary, international 

coalition of government agencies, conservation organizations, academic 

institutions, private industry, and other citizens dedicated to reversing the 

trends of declining bird populations and to “keeping common birds common.” 

The foundation of PIF’s long-term strategy for bird conservation is a series of 

scientifically based bird conservation plans, using physiographic provinces as 

planning units. The goal of each PIF plan is to ensure long-term maintenance of 

healthy populations of native birds, primarily nongame landbirds. Within each 

physiographic area, the plans rank bird species according to their conservation 

priority, describe desired habitat conditions, develop biological objectives, 

and recommend conservation actions. Habitat loss, population trends, and 

vulnerability of a species and its habitats to regional and local threats are all 

factors used in the priority ranking (Pashley et al. 2000).

Canaan Valley refuge lies in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Valley Physiographic 

Province, Bird Conservation Area (BCA) 12. The PIF Bird Conservation Plan 

for the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Valley (PIF 2003) provides a broad description of 

the area and associated habitats, identifies priority bird species and habitats, and 

describes habitat protection objectives (in acres) deemed necessary to support the 

various bird species associated with each habitat. In addition, the plan outlines 

other conservation recommendations and needs for bird species within the area. 

In all, 50 priority breeding-species of birds have been identified for BCA 12. 

Protecting these species will require a balanced mix of grasslands, shrub-scrub, 

forested wetlands, non-forested wetlands, and forested uplands habitats.

The final Area 12 PIF plan is available at http://www.partnersinflight.org. We 

referred to this plan as we considered management opportunities on the refuge 

and to help compile a list of birds of conservation concern for appendix A, 

“Species of Conservation Concern.”

Region 5 Birds of Conservation Concern (2008)

The Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) plan, updated every five years by our 

Division of Migratory Birds, identifies nongame migratory birds that, without 

conservation action, are likely to become candidates for listing under the ESA. 

The BCC compiles the highest ranking species of conservation concern from 

these major nongame bird conservation plans: PIF (species scoring >21), U.S. 

Shorebird Conservation Plan (species ranking 4 or 5), and North American 

Waterbird Conservation plan (species ranking 4 or 5). This report can be 

accessed online at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/

SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf.

We used the BCC list in compiling appendix A and to help us focus on which 

species might warrant special management attention. We also used the final 

Area 12 PIF plan to help generate the list of birds of conservation concern in 

appendix A.

The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning

1-9
1-10 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

American Woodcock Conservation Plan (2008) 

The American Woodcock Conservation Plan (Kelley & Williamson 2008) 

emerged from the efforts of the Service, state wildlife management agencies, 

and non-governmental organizations known as the Woodcock Task Force. 

Significant declines in woodcock populations since the 1970s are largely due 

to the loss of early successional habitat, as well as changes in land use and 

forestry practices. The plan outlines recommendations for halting this decline in 

woodcock populations and for returning them to densities which provide adequate 

recreational opportunities. Overall, the plan’s objective is to increase populations 

by increasing the amount of suitable habitat available. 

We referenced this plan when writing goals and objectives for this CCP. The plan 

is available for download on the Service’s Migratory Bird Division’s website at 

http://www.timberdoodle.org/sites/default/files/woodcockPlan_0.pdf.

Regional Wetlands Concept Plan – Emergency Wetlands Resources Act 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. 3901(b))

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to promote 

the conservation of our nation’s wetlands. The Act directs the Department of the 

Interior to develop a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan identifying 

the location and types of wetlands that should receive priority attention for 

acquisition by federal and state agencies using Land and Water Conservation 

Fund appropriations.

In 1990, our Northeast Region completed a Regional Wetlands Concept Plan to 

provide more specific information about wetlands resources in the Northeast. It 

identifies 850 wetland sites that warrant consideration for acquisition to conserve 

wetland values in our region (USFWS 1990b). 

The Northeast Regional Wetlands Concept Plan identifies wetlands located 

within the refuge, Canaan Valley, as well as Dobbins Slashings, and Elder Run 

Bog which are both located in Tucker County. We used this plan to help identify 

areas in need of long-term protection in the watershed, and to prioritize wetlands 

habitat management on the refuge.

Eastern Brook Trout Conservation

There are multiple organizations concerned with the conservation of the eastern 

brook trout, and two in particular have written plans and strategies which apply 

to Canaan Valley.

The Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV) is an organization composed 

of state and federal agencies, regional and local governments, businesses, 

conservation organizations, academia, scientific societies, and private citizens. 

Their vision is “to ensure healthy, fishable brook trout populations throughout 

their historic eastern United States range.”

The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-11

Their conservation plan, written in November 2007, consists of four principle 

goals and five key priorities which serve as the framework for the development of 

state-level brook trout conservation action plans. These key priorities are to

■ protect brook trout populations across the eastern United States;

■ restore brook trout populations where original habitat conditions exist and 

where habitats can be restored;

■ monitor and evaluate brook trout population responses to habitat protection, 

enhancement, and restoration projects;

■ complete brook trout distribution and quantitative status assessments; and

■ increase regional fishing opportunities for wild brook trout.

The EBTJV conservation plan is online at http://www.easternbrooktrout.org/docs/

EBTJV_Conservation_Strategy_July_08.pdf.

The state of West Virginia also developed a group, called the West Virginia 

Brook Trout Conservation Group (Conservation Group) in 2006 to compile a 

state conservation strategy which would focus resources, build partnerships, and 

promote local action to restore brook trout habitat.

The Conservation Group is composed of individuals representing West Virginia 

University, U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS), West Virginia Division of Natural 

Resources (WVDNR), Trout Unlimited, the Freshwater Institute, U.S. Forest 

Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They met from February to June 

2006 to write the West Virginia Brook Trout Conservation Strategy (strategy).

The strategy outlines a conservation goal, as well as various conservation 

priorities to be addressed. They further broke down the priorities into strategies 

to be implemented. The goal of the Conservation Group is to “Implement 

statewide strategies that protect, restore, and enhance healthy brook trout 

populations in West Virginia.”

The listed priorities are:

■ habitat and population protection;

■ habitat and population restoration and enhancement;

■ assessment, monitoring and research;

■ outreach, partnerships, and capacity building; and

■ enhanced socio-economic value to the state.

The strategy written by the Conservation Group can be found online at http://

www.easternbrooktrout.org/docs/EBTJV_WestVirginia_CS.pdf.

The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning

1-11
1-12 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Recovery Plan for the Cheat Mountain Salamander

On September 28, 1989, the Cheat Mountain salamander (Plethodon nettingi) 

was listed as threatened on the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife 

(USFWS 1991).

There are 80 disjunct populations of Cheat Mountain salamander throughout 

the known range. To date, surveys have been conducted at 499 sites within 

their range, with salamanders found in 80 disjunct populations. During surveys 

conducted in 1980 and 1989, two known historical populations were found to be 

extirpated, and during surveys in 1980, 1985, and 1989, fewer than ten specimens 

were uncovered in 51 of the 68 sites.

Since its listing as a threatened species, the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service have required onsite surveys for the salamander on federal 

lands and in areas being considered for development. According to the recovery 

plan, their recovery strategy began by obtaining an accurate overview of the 

species by determining its total range and searching for additional populations. 

More specific goals listed in the plan include:

■ define total range of the species;

■ survey additional areas within the known range to gain additional information 

about the species’ distribution and abundance;

■ monitor known populations to determine their status, territoriality; home 

range, environmental changes, and competitive pressure;

■ assess population characteristics;

■ determine the effects of human-induced habitat alterations; and

■ determine biological factors such as reproductive biology, growth rates, and 

genetic variability among populations.

Canaan Valley refuge surveys for Cheat Mountain salamanders annually, and 

they have been found on three separate locations on the refuge.

The Cheat Mountain salamander recovery plan is online at http://ecos.fws.gov/

docs/recovery_plan/910725.pdf.

Recovery Plan for the Indiana Bat 

In 1967, the federal government listed the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalist) as 

endangered because of declines in their numbers documented at their seven 

major hibernacula in the Midwest (USFWS 2007a).

Canaan Valley refuge falls in an area with known summer and winter records 

of the Indiana Bat. The refuge has conducted acoustical bat surveys since 

2005. Additionally, surveys were performed in collaboration with the U.S. 

Forest Service Northern Forest Research Station in 2003. The data collected 

presented compelling evidence of this species foraging on refuge property, and 

importantly, outside of migration periods. Evaluation of potential Indiana bat 

use of the Canaan Valley will be a priority of the Canaan Valley refuge, and this 

species should be considered as a likely occurrence in the southern portion of the 

watershed, including the properties in Timberline Resort.

The recovery plan for the Indiana bat can be viewed online: http://ecos.fws.gov/

docs/recovery_plan/070416.pdf.

The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning

Cheat mountain 

salamander

Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-13

Other Species of Concern 

The West Virginia northern flying squirrel, which occurs in refuge forests, was 

de-listed as an endangered species in September 2008. The squirrel has been 

successfully trapped and monitored at one location on the refuge but is expected 

to range throughout the higher elevations of the Kelly-Elkins Tract. The 

Service developed a Red Spruce-Northern Hardwood Ecosystem Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) with multiple federal, state and non-government 

organization (NGO) partners. The vision of the MOU includes specifically to 

“... provide functional habitat to sustain the viability of the West Virginia 

northern flying squirrel...” (USFWS 2007b). As an active partner in the MOU, 

the refuge will still consider the West Virginia northern flying squirrel a focal 

species. 

The bald eagle, delisted in August 2007, uses the refuge during winter months 

and migration. Bald eagles are still protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and remain a species of 

management priority for the Service. Bald eagles use the refuge primarily from 

late fall to early spring. Generally bald eagles observed are juveniles; however, 

adults are seen each year. Up to six bald eagles have been observed together on 

the refuge at one time. Typically eagles are seen singly during winter months 

foraging over the wetland areas in the northern portion of the refuge. No known 

nesting occurs in the vicinity of Canaan Valley.

Both the West Virginia northern flying squirrel and the bald eagle, although 

delisted, remain priority species for Service protection and management.

West Virginia Wildlife Conservation Action Plan (West Virginia 2006)

In 2006, state fish and wildlife agencies were required to develop comprehensive 

wildlife conservation strategies focusing on “species of greatest conservation 

need” in order to be eligible for funds from the state wildlife grant program. 

That program provides federal funds to states for conservation efforts aimed at 

preventing fish and wildlife populations from declining, reducing the potential for 

these species to be listed as endangered.

West Virginia’s plan, called the West Virginia Wildlife Conservation Action Plan 

(WVCAP), was revised several times; the latest revision occurred in 2006. The 

WVCAP divides the state into three physiographic provinces. Canaan Valley 

refuge is located in the landscape region known as the Western Allegheny 

Plateau. The WVCAP further breaks down the map into various habitat types. 

Canaan Valley lies mainly in the Red Spruce Forest and Northern Hardwood 

Forests habitats. 

In identifying the species in greatest need of conservation, the WVCAP compiles 

information from concern lists created by a variety of different organizations, 

including the Service, WVDNR, Natural Heritage Program, The World 

Conservation Union, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 

of Wild Flora and Fauna, West Virginia PIF, National Audubon Society, and 

others. The Cheat Mountain salamander, West Virginia northern flying squirrel, 

and the Indiana Bat are all identified as wildlife of greatest conservation need 

within the Canaan Valley refuge landscape.

West Virginia’s Wildlife Conservation Action Plan can be found at 

http://www.wvdnr.gov/Wildlife/PDFFiles/wvwcap.pdf.

The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning

1-13
1-14 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Refuges can be established by Congress through special legislation, by the 

President through executive order, or administratively by the Secretary of the 

Interior (delegated to the Director of the Service), who is authorized by congress 

through legislation. Refuge System lands have been acquired under a variety of 

legislative and administrative authorities.

The Service first considered establishing a national wildlife refuge in Canaan 

Valley, Tucker County, West Virginia in 1961, when a biological survey of the 

valley’s nationally significant wetlands and wildlife habitat was conducted. 

Additional field reconnaissance was undertaken in 1976, and realty and biological 

reconnaissance reports were prepared. In April 1977, the Director of the 

Service selected a proposal for consideration and directed commencement of an 

environmental impact review.

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for the refuge 

proposal in accordance with the requirements of NEPA. The EIS described the 

proposed action and discussed its environmental impacts, unavoidable adverse 

effects, the relationship between short-term use and long-term productivity, and 

commitments of resources, as specified in Section 102 of NEPA. The EIS also 

considered four alternatives to the proposed action.

Copies of the Draft EIS were provided to the public, appropriate federal, state, 

and local agencies for comment on March 24, 1978. Those comments were 

reviewed and considered in finalizing the EIS. The Service concluded this 

project planning/public review phase with the approval of the Final EIS on May 

30, 1979. 

With that action, the Service approved the establishment of the refuge, as 

authorized and directed by the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 

742a-742j), as amended. Section 7(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 742f) authorizes 

the Secretary of the Interior to take steps “required for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources including, but not limited to, research, development of existing 

facilities, and acquisition by purchase or exchange of land and water or interests 

therein.” Section 7 (a)(1) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 

as amended, September 28, 1976, (16 U.S.C. 4601-9) provides authority to use 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) money for acquisition of refuge 

areas under paragraph (5) of section 7(a) of the 1956 Act. This administrative 

action resulted in an approved land acquisition boundary, encompassing 28,000 

acres, within which lands could be acquired for the refuge according to the policy 

described in the Proposed Action section of the EIS.

The actual establishment of the refuge was delayed due to the proposal to create 

a hydroelectric power project in the area that involved the major land ownerships 

within the acquisition boundary. The largest single landholding within the 

boundary consisted of a 15,000-acre tract owned by Allegheny Power Systems, 

Inc./Monongahela Power Company. This tract includes a major portion of the 

large unique wetland ecosystem and surrounding undeveloped lands located in 

the central and northern portion of Canaan Valley. 

In April 1977, the Federal Power Commission (now Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, FERC) licensed Allegheny Power to construct the Davis Power 

Project, a pumped storage hydroelectric project. The proposed power project 

would have inundated approximately 4,400 acres of wetlands and about 2,900 

acres of terrestrial habitat. On July 14, 1978, the power project permit, required 

under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was denied by the U.S. Army Corps 

Refuge Purposes 

and Land Acquisition 

History

Canaan Valley Refuge 

Establishing Legislation

Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-15

of Engineers because of the project’s extensive adverse impacts to wetlands. 

A period of litigation ensued, involving several appeals. The situation was not 

resolved until 1988, at which time the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to review 

a U.S. Court of Appeals decision that a Clean Water Act permit was required 

[cert.denied. 484 U.S. 816 (1987)]. On April 29, 1991, FERC granted Allegheny 

Power’s request for a stay of the project license based, “... on the lack of viability 

of the project.”

During this period, the Service did not proceed with acquisition of any lands or 

request funding for that purpose. Public outreach, via field tours, presentations, 

media contacts, etc., continued throughout the period. In 1991, the Service 

proposed boundary modifications in the southern end of the refuge in response 

to concerns expressed by local government officials and owners of developed 

properties in the valley. Areas which were originally included within the project 

boundary because of their biological importance were deleted because their 

habitat value had been compromised as a result of development. These lands 

were removed from the boundary, since the Service had no interest in acquiring 

developed lands, therefore reducing the total approved acquisition boundary to 

24,000 acres.

With the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and the granting of the license stay, the 

Service developed a final environmental assessment in 1994 to determine if any 

substantial changes had been made to the proposed action, or if circumstances 

or new information relevant to the environmental concerns were still within the 

scope of the EIS. Based on that review and the Service’s determination that the 

project modification and intervening developments were of minor effect on the 

basic project, the Service determined that a supplemental environmental impact 

statement would not be necessary. The Service therefore proceeded with the next 

step in the refuge establishment process and submitted a request for funding. 

The proposed refuge received renewed support from the WVDNR, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), many other agencies and conservation 

organizations, and local governments and citizens.

Canaan Valley refuge was established when the Freeland Tract was purchased 

on September 11, 1994. Through various purchases between 1994 and 2001, the 

refuge slowly grew to just over 3,000 acres in size. In February 2002, the refuge 

acquired just under 12,000 acres from Allegheny Power Systems, including 

much of the wetlands in the central part of the valley. This purchase brought the 

acreage of the refuge to 15,245.

The refuge was established to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley 

and the continued availability of its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources to 

the citizens of West Virginia and the United States. Encompassing over 8,400 

acres, it is the largest wetland complex in both West Virginia and the central 

and southern Appalachians. It is listed as a priority for protection under the 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, as implemented by the Service’s 

Regional Wetlands Concept Plan, and considered by the state of West Virginia as 

“the most important wetland in the State.”

The Service established the refuge for the following purposes and under the 

following authorities:

“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection 

of fish and wildlife resources...” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)

(4)); 

“... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public 

benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained 

in various migratory bird treaties and conventions” (Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986; 16 U.S.C. 3901(b));

Canaan Valley Refuge 

Purposes

Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History
1-16 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 602, Chapter 4 (Refuge 

Planning Policy) lists more than 25 step-down management plans that are 

generally required on refuges. Those plans “step down” general goals and 

objectives to specific strategies and implementation schedules. Some require 

annual revisions; others are revised on a 5- to 10-year schedule. Some require 

additional NEPA analysis, public involvement, and compatibility determinations 

before they can be implemented.

The following step-down plans are completed and up-to date.

■ Hunt Management Plan (1997) revised 2007

■ Fire Management Plan (2002) revised 2004

■ Fur Bearer Management Plan (2004)

■ Continuity of Operations Plan (2007)

■ Fire Prevention Plan (2007)

■ Hurricane Action Plan (2007)

■ Emergency Action Plan (2007)

■ HPAI: Avian Influenza Plan (2006)

■ Chronic Wasting Disease Plan (2006)

The following step-down plans need to be completed.

■ Visitor Services Plan

■ Habitat Management Plan

■ Fishing Plan

■ Inventory and Monitoring Plan

Early in the planning process, our team developed the following vision statement 

to provide a guiding philosophy and sense of purpose for our planning.

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge showcases the largest contiguous, high 

elevation wetland complex in West Virginia and harbors a vast assemblage of 

rare plants and animals normally associated with more northern latitudes. 

The refuge conserves, protects, and manages a mosaic of wetland, forested, and 

early successional habitat that supports migratory birds and threatened and 

endangered species. As a steward of a significant portion of the headwaters, the 

Refuge ensures the integrity of the natural resources of the upper Blackwater 

River watershed. Refuge habitats and wildlife are conserved and managed 

through research and collaboration with federal, state, and local conservation 

partners.

As an integral part of the surrounding community, the Refuge provides 

high quality, safe, wholesome, and diverse opportunities for education and 

Refuge Operational 

Plans (“Step-Down” 

Plans)

Refuge Vision 

Statement

Refuge Vision Statement
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-17

recreation, especially hunting and wildlife observation. The refuge experience 

fosters public interest in the beauty and unique character of Canaan Valley, an 

appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology, plant ecology, and stewardship of the 

natural world. Visitors develop a greater understanding and appreciation for 

the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and refuge management 

programs, and for the importance of protecting lands for wildlife conservation.

Our planning team developed the following goals for the refuge after a review of 

legal and policy guidelines, the Service mission, regional plans, refuge purposes, 

our vision for the refuge, and public comments. All of these goals fully conform 

with and support national and regional mandates and policies.

1. Maintain and perpetuate the ecological integrity of the Canaan Valley wetland 

complex to ensure a healthy and diverse wetland ecosystem providing a full 

range of natural processes, community types, and native fl oral and faunal 

diversity.

2. Perpetuate the ecological integrity of upland northern hardwood and northern 

hardwood-conifer forests to sustain native wildlife and plant communities 

including species of conservation concern, to develop late-successional forest 

characteristics, and to perpetuate the biological diversity and integrity of upland 

forest ecosystems.

3. Provide and promote through active management a diversity of successional 

habitats in upland and wetland-edge shrublands, grasslands, old fi elds, and 

hardwood communities to sustain early successional and shrubland specialists 

such as golden-winged warbler, American woodcock, brown thrasher, eastern 

towhee, fi eld sparrow, and other species of concern.

4. Enable visitors of all abilities to enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent 

recreation and education to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and 

enjoyment of refuge habitats, wildlife, and cultural history.

5. Collaborate with partners to promote the natural resources of Canaan Valley 

and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

We began planning for Canaan Valley refuge in 2006. Our early meetings 

consisted of getting acquainted with the planning process and collecting 

information on natural resources and public use. We identified preliminary 

issues and management concerns, and developed refuge vision statements and 

preliminary goals. Figure 1.1 describes the steps of the planning process and 

how it integrates NEPA compliance.

We hosted public open houses in October 2006 in Thomas, Parsons, and Elkins, 

and in January 2007 in Canaan Valley. We then distributed a workbook and issues 

survey to neighbors, visitors, and other interested parties during the fall and 

winter of 2006. A total of 2,000 workbooks were sent out and 129 were returned 

with comments. Our purpose was to provide local residents and other interested 

individuals the opportunity to become involved in the comprehensive conservation 

planning process. The responses we received on protecting resources and 

providing public use helped influence our development of issues and alternatives.

Following the public open houses, we hosted a series of field meetings with 

resource professionals from The Nature Conservancy, Canaan Valley Institute, 

Refuge Goals

The Comprehensive 

Conservation Planning 

Process

Planning Process

The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
1-18 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

the U.S. Forest Service, WVDNR, National Park Service, and West Virginia 

University, as well as recreational user groups to discuss some of the issues 

related to public use and habitat management on Canaan Valley refuge.

Between January and July 2007, these specialist groups met to discuss rare 

plant and natural community conservation, deer management, migratory bird 

management, educational and interpretation opportunities and other wildlifedependent recreational uses of the refuge. These meetings helped refuge staff to 

communicate with our state, federal and NGO partners concerning the direction 

of the refuge over the next 15 years.

In the winter of 2007, the Service sponsored a stakeholder evaluation conducted 

by the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch of the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS). This provided us with a way to more fully understand community 

preferences and opinions related to key topics in refuge planning.

A 45-day public review will follow the release of this draft CCP/EA. We will 

review and analyze all written and oral comments, summarize the comments and 

our disposition of their concerns, and publish that document in an appendix of the 

final CCP. The final CCP will identify our management direction for the next 15 

years. Once approved by the regional director of the Service, if appropriate, we 

will write a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to certify that the final 

CCP met agency compliance requirements, will achieve refuge purposes, and will 

help fulfill the Refuge System mission. We will then submit the final CCP and 

FONSI to our regional director for review and approval. Once the FONSI and the 

CCP have been approved, we will make them available to all interested parties. 

We can start implementing the final CCP as soon as our regional director has 

approved it.

We will evaluate our accomplishments under the CCP each year. More intensive 

monitoring is proposed for each program area, depending on the alternative 

selected. If future monitoring or new information results in the prediction of a 

significant impact, additional analysis would be required.

The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process Mary Konchar

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-19

Figure 1.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and its 

relationship to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

From the issues workbook, public and focus group meetings, and planning team 

discussions, we developed a list of issues, concerns, opportunities, or other items 

requiring a management decision. We sorted them into two categories:

The key issues, together with refuge goals, form the basis for developing and 

comparing the different management alternatives we analyze in chapter 3. The 

wide-ranging opinions on how to address key issues and conform to goals and 

objectives generated those varying alternatives. We describe them in detail 

below.

Issues and concerns outside the scope of this analysis- These do not fall within 

the scope of the “Purpose and Need for Action” in this plan. We discuss them 

after “key Issues” below, but this plan does not address them further.

Issues and 

Opportunities

Key issues

Issues and Opportunities

The Comprehensive 

Conservation 

Planning Process & 

NEPA Compliance

A. Preplanning: 

Plan the Plan

NEPA

sPURPOSEANDNEED

E. Prepare Draft 

Plan & NEPA 

$OCUMENT

NEPA

sPREPAREDISTRIBUTEDRAFT

##0AND.%0!

DOCUMENTATION

sPUBLICCOMMENT

 review

$$EVELOP Analyze 

!LTERNATIVES

NEPA

sREASONABLERANGEOF

 ALTERNATIVES

s.O!CTIONALTERNATIVE

sACCESSENVIRONMENTAL

 EFFECTS

sTHE0ROPOSED!CTION

&0REPARE!DOPT Final Plan

NEPA

sRESPONDTOPUBLICCOMMENT

sIDENTIFYPREFERRED

 alternative

sPREPAREDISTRIBUTEFINAL

##0AND.%0!

DOCUMENTATION

sPREPAREDISTRIBUTE&/.3)

FOR%!OR2/$FOR%)3

#2EVIEW6ISION

3TATEMENT'OALS

$ETERMINE

3IGNIFICANT)SSUES

NEPA

sIDENTIFYSIGNIFICANTISSUES

')MPLEMENT0LAN

-ONITOR%VALUATE

NEPA

s.%0!COMPLIANCE

PUBLICINVOLVEMENT

WHENAPPLICABLE

")NITIATE0UBLIC

)NVOLVEMENT

3COPING

NEPA

sNOTIFYTHEPUBLIC

sINVOLVETHEPUBLIC

sSCOPETHEISSUES

(2EVIEW2EVISE

Plan

NEPA

s.%0!COMPLIANCE

 PUBLICINVOLVEMENTWHEN

 APPLICABLE
1-20 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

We derived the following key issues from public and partner meetings and 

further team discussions. How they are addressed and how well they support 

refuge goals primarily distinguishes the three management alternatives in 

chapter 3.

How will the refuge provide quality hunting and fishing opportunities for the 

public? 

Hunting and fishing are two of the priority public uses that are to receive 

enhanced consideration in CCPs. Hunting and fishing are also historical, 

traditional, and very popular activities in the Canaan Valley area, in the state of 

West Virginia and in the Refuge System.

Fishing 

The refuge has no approved fishing plan. The refuge allows anglers to access 

fishing areas via established trails that are open to public use. Fishing in these 

areas is conducted according to state regulation. The state regularly stocks the 

Blackwater River along Rt. 32, along Timberline Road, and in Canaan Valley 

Resort State Park. There are no special refuge regulations for fishing. Some 

anglers would like to be allowed off-trail access on the refuge, just as hunters are. 

The refuge must decide whether to officially open to fishing and, if it does open 

to fishing, how to promote fishing on the refuge. Addressing this issue will help 

support goal 4.

Hunting

Approximately 98% of the refuge is currently open to hunting, with most seasons 

following the state seasons. In particular, the refuge has been concerned about 

the large local deer population and its impact on refuge habitats. The refuge 

has discussed several possibilities for increasing the deer harvest on the refuge, 

including reassessing areas of the refuge that are either closed completely to deer 

hunting or that are closed to rifle hunting. The refuge is also working on devising 

ways to make some interior parts of the refuge more accessible to hunters. In 

West Virginia, many hunters use all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) to access remote 

hunting areas and to haul deer out of woods. The state has encouraged the refuge 

to consider this option, but ATVs are not permitted on the refuge. Some hunters 

have favored the use of ATVs while others have opposed it. 

The refuge could also work with the state to develop special deer hunts on the 

refuge that would further help reduce the refuge’s deer population. Addressing 

the issue of deer overpopulation would support all five of the refuge’s goals and 

would be integral to the success of several biological goals and objectives. Finally, 

the refuge could work with other local landowners to help address the deer 

population on neighboring lands. Addressing these issues will help support goal 4. 

How will the refuge provide quality wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities for the public?

The refuge has opened 31 miles of roads and trails for public use. The current 

trail system provides access to most habitat types in the valley. Trails are 

zoned for pedestrian access, biking, horseback-riding, cross-country-skiing and 

snowshoeing. Pedestrian access is permitted on all trails, but most of the other 

uses are only permitted on some of the trails. All these uses support the six 

priority public uses. Some visitors would like the refuge to permit additional uses 

and to create more trails. Addressing these issues will help support goal 4. 

How will the refuge address Camp 70/Delta Road access?

Camp 70 is a state road that is bordered by refuge land on either side. The road 

starts at Davis and enters the refuge in the north west corner, continuing for 

several miles until it ends at the Camp 70 Loop Trail. The road was historically 

Issues and Opportunities
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-21

located within refuge lands but no maintenance has been conducted by refuge 

staff or others for decades. Camp 70 is minimally maintained outside of the 

refuge boundaries. The road is currently an open public access route within 

the refuge’s trail system and is therefore open to all users on foot, bicycle, and 

horseback riding. Because the road is under state authority, its use is regulated 

by the state. Therefore all vehicles are permitted on the road. However Camp 70 

is an unimproved road that is in poor condition, and is likely impassable without 

four-wheel-drive. 

There is interest from the community and stakeholders to keep Camp 70/Delta 13 

and the connecting loop trail open to pedestrians, bicycling, and horseback riding. 

The refuge has expressed its desire to acquire this road so that it could invest in 

improving the road’s condition. Addressing these issues will help support goal 4. 

How will the refuge promote trail connectivity both on and off the refuge? 

Despite the 31 miles of roads and trails on the refuge, there is no east-west or 

north-south corridor that can take visitors from one end of the refuge to the 

other. In some areas, sensitive wetlands and lack of continuous refuge land 

ownership prevent connectivity. Some visitors have asked the refuge to look at 

different options for connecting the refuge’s trails, such as converting old rail 

road grades that bisect the refuge into public use trails. Visitors have also asked 

that refuge trails be connected with trails off refuge on neighboring lands, like 

Canaan Valley State Park.

Connecting trails, both on and off refuge, allows people to travel longer distances 

for a more rigorous outdoor experience. Some people would also argue that 

becoming part of a long distance trail system offers a more quality recreational 

experience. Longer, connected trails may also minimize the need for motorized 

vehicles and could contribute to improving air quality. For example, people from 

local urban areas could come to the refuge to participate in multi-day hiking or 

bicycling trips instead of traveling to more remote locations to have a similar 

kind of experience. Addressing these issues will help support goal 4. 

How will the refuge be managed to protect federal trust resources?

The lack of suitable red spruce forest and the degraded and isolated condition of 

the then existing spruce forest were the primary reasons for listing the Cheat 

Mountain salamander and the West Virginia northern flying squirrel under the 

ESA. These conditions persist on refuge lands. Although the squirrel has since 

recovered and has been delisted, the salamander remains a federally threatened 

species. Improving the size and connectivity of red spruce forest on the refuge 

will help long term management and protection of species with the highest 

need for conservation in the state, such as the salamander and the squirrel. 

Furthermore, salamander populations have been located on the southern end 

of the refuge, where White Grass Touring Center (White Grass) operates a 

commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing operation on refuge land. 

Research related to the salamander has shown that logging roads and some 

hiking trails can serve as barriers to salamander movement and therefore can 

result in genetic dispersal. The refuge is required by the ESA to improve and 

restore habitat for federally listed species, when feasible. White Grass provides 

the largest single source of public use on the refuge during the winter and 

likely during the entire year. Trails used by White Grass have conditions more 

conducive to salamander movements (canopy cover, not heavily traveled during 

spring and summer, vegetated) however habitat improvement projects may be 

beneficial to the species. The refuge will ensure that permitting public use on 

the refuge and in cooperation with White Grass will not have any adverse effects 

to the Cheat Mountain salamander. Further we hope to use White Grass as 

Issues and Opportunities
1-22 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

a conduit to increase the public’s understanding of the salamander and other 

resources of concern the refuge protects and manages.

The Indiana bat is a federally listed endangered species and a trust resource 

of the Service. Primary foraging habitats include wetland and riparian areas, 

bottomland forests and edge habitats. Acoustical recordings suggest Indiana bats 

are using riparian corridors and beaver ponds on the refuge for summer foraging 

habitat. The refuge will need to do additional surveys to learn more about the 

bat’s presence, reproductive information, the types of refuge habitats used, 

and the seasons they are using the refuge habitats. If Indiana bats are using 

the refuge for foraging and roosting, protecting, maintaining and improving 

habitat quality on the refuge will contribute to the viability of the species and its 

recovery. 

Addressing these issues will contribute to Goals 1 and 2. 

How will the refuge manage for early-successional habitats?

The decline of early successional and transitional forest habitat in the northeast 

is concurrent with the decline of species dependent on this habitat type (Sauer 

et al 2007, Fink et al 2006). On a regional scale, loss of small farms, increase of 

commercial and residential development, suppression of historically important 

disturbances such as fire, and decrease in large area clear-cutting contribute 

to the loss of early successional habitat (Brooks 2003, Lorimer 2001, Trani et 

al 2001). The suite of birds reliant on this habitat type are of high conservation 

priority in BCR 28 and the state (PIF 2003, WVDNR 2006) and includes 

American woodcock, Eastern towhee, field sparrow, indigo bunting, and brown 

thrasher. American woodcock is also a priority species of conservation concern 

and an important management species for recreational hunters. As a species 

occurring in Canaan Valley in greater concentration and abundance than 

other parts of the state and as a priority species for management in founding 

documents, the refuge identifies woodcock as an important management species. 

The refuge is surrounded by forested lands including the Monongahela 

National Forest (Dolly Sods Wilderness Area) and two state parks where early 

successional habitat management is not the intent of management actions. 

In contrast, the refuge’s extensive shrublands, old fields, and young forests 

currently provide early successional and shrubland habitat that is scarce in the 

region, state, and local area. Still, the refuge will need to determine how much 

of this habitat to manage for, and where. Addressing this issue will contribute to 

goal 3. 

South Rail Grade Crossing (Jack Neal’s Ford)

The refuge has conducted a series of evaluations to consider the use of the south 

rail grade for a developed public use trail. Beginning in 2002 refuge staff worked 

with a contract hydrologist and soil scientist to begin evaluating trail locations for 

the refuge. In 2007 the refuge contracted with Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 

(VHB) to conduct an independent feasibility study to evaluate the potential of this 

rail grade to be improved for use as a public use route on the refuge. This report 

is available to the public on the planning website. 

The refuge takes many factors into consideration when evaluating new trail 

development. These include but are not limited to considerations of wildlife 

disturbance, introduction of invasive plant species, infrastructure requirements, 

required maintenance, wetland protection, soil stability and how a proposed trail 

can help fulfill the priority public uses of the refuge system. One of the refuge’s 

primary considerations is whether a trail can facilitate priority public uses with 

Issues Considered but not 

Further Analyzed in this 

draft CCP/EA

Issues and Opportunities
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-23

minimal impact to the resource so as to prevent the use from detracting from the 

purposes for which the refuge was established.

The Blackwater River crossing of this trail is highly eroded. The bare 

soil conditions on the river banks require restoration to prevent continued 

sedimentation of the river. VHB recommended a pedestrian foot bridge be 

established to prevent future erosion of the river banks and to provide a safe 

crossing over the Blackwater River under all conditions. Access to this site for 

bridge construction is limited and would require filling of wetland areas needed 

to bring equipment to the site. The construction of a bridge would be costly and 

would require ongoing maintenance.

The western section of the South Rail Grade that crosses the valley and the 

Blackwater River is extremely eroded after years of vehicle use and flooding. 

A short section east of the river is generally more stable, however it is also 

isolated. This would make it challenging to fill and to haul in equipment for 

building substantial infrastructure, such as a boardwalk, which would be needed 

to support public use with minimal impact to wetland plant communities and 

soils. In a longer section leading up to the juncture where the South Rail Grade 

connects to Middle Ridge, the trail is again highly eroded and has been flooded 

by beaver activity in recent years. Beaver inundation along the southern portion 

of the grade has also created weakened sections which show signs of erosion. This 

section would also require significant infrastructure to make it suitable for public 

access without causing continued wetland degradation.

Through the VHB study, the refuge determined that the one-time and ongoing 

monetary and environmental costs to construct and maintain a sustainable 

trail along the south rail grade crossing were far greater than the benefits to 

the public of providing this additional public use. The refuge also determined 

that similar habitats can be viewed from existing refuge trails including Camp 

70, Brown Mountain Overlook, Freeland, South Glade Run Crossing and the 

northern section of the Middle Valley Trail. The refuge also determined that 

there are multiple opportunities to experience the refuge’s wetland habitats in 

ways that do not impact those habitats nearly as much as a trail on the South 

Rail Grade crossing would. The risks to the refuge’s biological resources through 

construction, use, and maintenance of such a trail are substantial. 

Given the above considerations, the refuge has concluded that this trail is not a 

realistic or viable option for several reasons, but primarily because the old rail 

grade is mostly gone and the proposed trail exists almost entirely on wetland 

soils. It is the refuge’s opinion that development of a new trail corridor through 

the heart of the largest wetland complex in the state of West Virginia would 

ultimately compromise the purposes of the refuge and affect our ability to fulfill 

obligations under the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 

Policy.

Competetive Races

The refuge periodically receives requests to use Forest Road (FR) 80 for 

competitive foot, bike and other races because of its connections bridging the 

Timberline/ Winterset areas, the national forest, and Freeland Road. 

Timberline Resort has a right-of-way (ROW) through the refuge on Winterset 

Road (Idleman’s Run Road), continuing southwest on FR 80, to Freeland Road. 

Therefore, anyone granted access by Timberline has access to Freeland Road 

along this ROW. In the past, foot races have descended Cabin Mountain using 

Timberline’s ski trails and crossed to Freeland road using Timberline’s ROW 

along FR 80 and the Winterset Road.

Issues and Opportunities
1-24 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

FR 80 was rebuilt in 2003 and can support car and light truck traffic. The impact 

to the road itself from a foot or bike race and the supporting vehicles is likely to 

be small. However, impacts from such events extend beyond the roadway and 

can include litter and off-road travel from by-standers. Races are not a wildlifedependent use, and the presence of the participants, support personnel, and 

observers can interfere with other users participating in wildlife-dependent 

recreation. Therefore, we will not allow competitive races along the length of FR 

80 because these races could result in major impacts to habitat and wildlife, and 

because races are not a priority public use. In addition, competitive races do not 

support any of the priority public uses, and they do not contribute to the purposes 

of the refuge or the mission of the Refuge System.

Overnight Camping on the Refuge

Over the years, the refuge has received requests for overnight camping from 

different groups of users. Hunters have requested overnight camping to facilitate 

hunting, especially in the more remote areas of the refuge where greater hunting 

pressure is needed to cull the deer population. Allowing hunters to camp may 

increase the number of deer taken in the valley, but there are many other factors 

that contribute to the refuge’s large deer population, such as neighboring lands 

that are closed to hunting and are used by deer as a safe haven. 

Hikers have also requested overnight camping to facilitate hiking longer 

distances through neighboring conservation lands such as Canaan Valley 

Institute and U.S. Forest Service lands. Other users claim that overnight 

camping would allow visitors to experience the refuge at nighttime, therefore 

exposing the public to different aspects of wildlife and their habitats such as 

mammal movements at dusk, waterfowl roosting, and owls.

In regards to overnight camping, the refuge’s primary concern is the permanent 

disturbance to soils and vegetation around camp sites. Trampling around camp 

sites is well documented to increase soil compaction, reduce water infiltration, 

and reduce vegetative cover. Furthermore, the long-term presence of people 

would cause disturbance to nocturnal animals that rely on the cover of night to 

forage and hunt. Finally, there would be sanitary issues such as how to deal with 

human waste. 

There are also numerous administrative and law enforcement issues associated 

with overnight camping. Campers would likely require a special use permit, 

which would further tax the limited administrative staff at the refuge. The 

numerous law enforcement issues associated with camping include trash, illegal 

fires and the creation of spur trails around campsites. It would probably take 

a full-time law enforcement officer to monitor camp sites for these issues, and 

the refuge currently only has one law enforcement officer. These additional 

duties would place an onerous burden on the refuge and would detract from the 

resources (funding and staff time) currently being used to support activities that 

contribute to the refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System. 

Issues and Opportunities
Chapter 1. Introduction and Purpose of and Need For Action 1-25

In summary, there are many issues related to overnight camping including law 

enforcement, management of the program and potential habitat and wildlife 

disturbance. Camping is not a priority public use and although it may facilitate 

some of the priority public uses, the resources it takes to manage overnight 

camping far outweigh the benefits from this activity. Additionally there are 

numerous areas where camping is permitted in close proximity to refuge 

property. Dispersed camping is permitted in the U.S. Forest Service land to 

the east and west of refuge boundaries. Camping is also permitted on property 

managed by the Canaan Valley Institute along Camp 70 Road outside of refuge 

boundaries. Finally, developed campsites are located at the Canaan Valley State 

Park and at Blackwater Falls State Park. These resources provide reasonable 

overnight facilities that allow users to access the refuge during normal hours of 

operation (one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset).

Periodic review of the CCP will be required to ensure that objectives are being 

met and management actions are being implemented. Ongoing monitoring and 

evaluation will be an important part of this process. Monitoring results or new 

information may indicate the need to change our strategies.

At a minimum, CCPs will be fully revised every 15 years. We will modify the 

CCP documents and associated management activities as needed; following the 

procedures outlined in Service policy and NEPA requirements.

Plan Amendment and 

Revision

Plan Amendment and Revision

Deer mouse tracks in the snow

Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 1 Chapter 2

■ Introduction

■ Physical Environment

■ Regional Economic Setting

■ Recreation and Tourism

■ The Refuge and its Resources

■ Vegetation and Habitat Resources

■ Fisheries Habitats and Resources

■ Wildlife

■ Special Uses

■ Public Access, Education and Recreational 

Opportunities

■ Cultural Resources

Affected Environment

Canaan Valley NWR

Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-1

Physical Environment

This chapter describes the environment that may be affected by land acquisition 

and management activities of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge). 

The affected environment includes the Canaan Valley (valley) watershed as well 

as outlying communities such as Davis and Thomas due to potential economic 

implications. However, the affected environment focal area will emphasize only 

those lands within currently owned refuge boundaries, acquisition boundaries 

and the adjacent communities and businesses within the Canaan Valley 

watershed.

Elements of the physical environment considered include climate, hydrology, 

geology, soils, and contaminants.

The climate is cool and moist resulting from the geography and elevation of 

the valley. Temperatures are lower than those recorded in the surrounding 

areas. Canaan’s average annual temperature is 45°F. During the winter, the 

temperatures in Canaan Valley are consistently below 38°F average and 

can reach below -20°F on occasion. Summer temperatures average between 

75°F and 80°F. With an average elevation of 3,200 feet above sea level and 

mountains that ring the valley, a frost pocket can develop where the cold moist 

air becomes trapped in the valley. As a result, frost can occur throughout the 

summer months creating a brief growing season more typical of areas farther 

north. Temperatures in the 20’s (F) have been recorded in all summer months 

(Leffler 2002).

Due to the valley’s location along the ridge of the Allegheny Mountains, 

precipitation is enhanced from orographic lifting events. Moist air is forced 

up over the high ridge of the Alleghenies which creates heavier precipitation 

within the valley than in surrounding areas. Annual precipitation in Canaan 

Valley averages 55 inches. Precipitation is rather evenly distributed during the 

year, with the driest months typically occurring in September and October. 

June is usually the wettest month of the year typically averaging 5.4 inches of 

precipitation. On average, 4.46 inches of precipitation fall each month. Out of the 

total precipitation, a significant portion falls as snow in Canaan Valley. Annual 

snowfall on the valley floor averaged 134 inches for the period of 1961-1990 

(Leffler 2002).

Canaan Valley is currently the subject of an intensive climate study conducted by 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Recent research 

shows that the valley is impaired by both wet and dry sulfuric and nitric acid 

precipitation as well as high levels of ozone pollution. Acid precipitation in the 

Canaan Valley during the fall and winter of 2000-2001 averaged 4.3 - 4.4 pH.

Freshwater

The main water body in the Canaan Valley is the Blackwater River. The 

headwaters of the Blackwater originate within the Canaan Valley Resort State 

Park (State Park) and flow north exiting out of the valley on the western gap 

between Canaan and Brown mountains. Cabin Mountain, forming the eastern 

watershed boundary of the Valley, also forms the drainage divide between the 

eastward-flowing Potomac and northwestward-flowing Cheat River. 

In Canaan Valley the Blackwater River gradient is approximately 3.7 feet per 

mile. Its gradient between Canaan Valley and Davis is approximately 17.6 feet 

per mile. Annual average flow of the Blackwater River is 191 cubic feet per 

second (cfs).

Introduction

Physical Environment

Climate

Hydrology
2-2 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Physical Environment

Tributaries to the Blackwater enter along its course through the valley and many 

of them flow through the refuge. These tributaries include the Little Blackwater 

River, Glade Run, the North Branch, Sand Run, Yokum Run, and Freeland Run. 

Additionally, numerous unnamed small streams and springs feed the Blackwater 

as it travels through the valley, adding to its size. The Blackwater River and its 

major tributaries are low gradient streams on the refuge.

There are numerous springs and seeps throughout the refuge that create 

wetlands and small ponds. Extensive wetland complexes occur in the northern 

portion of the refuge. These wetlands comprise the largest wetland aggregation 

in the state of West Virginia. Beaver activity has impounded drainages on the 

refuge to create ponds of various sizes. Old beaver ponds have developed into 

palustrine wetlands and bogs. Beaver ponds have increased over the years as 

beaver populations swelled. Analysis of aerial photography found 113 beaver 

ponds in 1945 and 222 in 2003 (Bonner 2005, 2009).

There are four ground water aquifer zones in Canaan Valley identified as the 

Pottsville/Mauch Chunk, Greenbrier, Greenbrier/Pocono and Pocono. Wells 

drilled in the valley range from 105 feet in the valley floor to over 260 feet in the 

Pocono aquifer on the hilltops of the valley (Kozar 1995).

The importance of the North Branch was also studied by Kozar (1995) who 

notes the 5.5 mi2 North Branch drainage was an important source for ground 

water recharge for Canaan Valley due to its large drainage area. The southern 

portion of the valley was found to have a more significant role in ground water 

recharge compared to the north end of the valley. This was mostly attributed to 

the permeability of the limestone geology that underlies certain drainages in the 

southern end of the valley (Kozar 1995). 

The majority of the freshwater used is withdrawn by the State Park and 

Timberline Four Seasons Resort. The State Park pumped over 144 million 

gallons of surface water from the Blackwater River for park operations during 

1992 (including operation of the ski resort and golf course). Timberline Four 

Seasons Resort used almost 9 million gallons of ground water and 50 million 

gallons of surface water for operations and snow making during 1990. With 

increasing development occurring in the southern portion of the valley, ground 

water use through new well development continues to increase.

The refuge lies in the Canaan Valley watershed located in the high plateau zone 

of the Allegheny Mountain section of the Appalachian Plateau physiographic 

province (Gwinn, 1964). The average elevation of 3,200 feet above sea level 

coupled with the 35,000 acre watershed makes this area the highest valley 

of its size east of the Rocky Mountains. The average elevation for the ridges 

surrounding the valley is 3,900 feet, although several peaks reach elevations in 

excess of 4,200 feet.

The Canaan Valley was formed by the erosion of the Blackwater Anticline. 

This created the center “middle ridge” portion of the valley, formed by Pocono 

sandstone which is the older sandstone formation in the valley. More erosive 

rock in the center and edges of the valley created depressions surrounding the 

middle Pocono sandstone ridge. These depressions are what have developed 

into the wetland areas of the valley. Canaan is underlain by moderately dipping 

sedimentary rock of the Pocono, Greenbrier, Mauch Chunk, and Pottsville 

Groups. 

Pottsville sandstone forms the ridges surrounding the valley with the younger 

sandstones, shale and coal of the Mauch Chunk and Pottsville groups lying 

Geology
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-3

Physical Environment

underneath. The Mauch Chunk seen in exposed sections of the valley as red, 

fine grained shale occupies the lower slopes of Canaan and Cabin Mountains. 

Greenbrier limestone underlies most of the valley creating unique wetland 

communities where their buffering capacity influences water quality.

The soils of the valley were characterized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

1967 soil survey report into 19 series and five physiographic categories: 

uplands, lower slopes, flood plains, and stream terraces and swamps (Losche 

and Beverage, 1967). The upland sites are characterized as well-drained or 

excessively drained. The two major soil associations are Wet Terrace LandDekalb-Blago Associations and the Dekalb-Calvin-Belmont Associations. The 

common soils making up the upper, middle, and lower portions of sloping land and 

low hills are Dekalb, Calvin, and Belmont. Mecksville soils are characterized as 

deep and well-drained and tend to occur at the bases of mountain slopes in the 

valley (Fortney 1975).

Soils in the lower flood plain, stream, and swamp areas are mostly poorly to 

very poorly drained. The most common soil types in these areas are Blago and 

Atkins, with Muck and Peat soils occurring most extensively in the Canaan 

Valley (Fortney 1975). Wet Terrace Land soils include Blago and Atkins series 

soils as well as other soils in undifferentiated land units. Similarly Muck and Peat 

soils combine all organic soil types into one category for mapping purposes. 

Canaan Valley contains the largest expanse of Wet Terrace Land and Muck and 

Peat soils in Tucker County. These wetland soils are characterized as organic 

soils that are either strongly or extremely acidic. Generally these organic soil 

layers are two feet or more in thickness. Muck and Peat soils are generally flat 

with a water table at or near the surface most of the year (Fortney 1975).

Little information exists for environmental contaminants on refuge property. 

However, in May 2006, Kathleen Patnode, a Service environmental contaminants 

specialist, conducted a site visit as part of the scheduled Contaminants 

Assessment Process (CAP). The objective of the CAP is to identify any past, 

current, or potential contaminants issues on the refuge and to recommend, where 

necessary, corrective or preventative measures. She visited known or suspected 

areas of concern and reviewed the property acquisition files for these areas. 

For all but one area, previous evaluation was limited to a Phase I Contaminants 

Survey prior to acquisition. 

Areas evaluated include a water-pumping station adjacent to the Blackwater 

River on the Reichle Tract, approximately ten capped natural gas well sites and 

eight old hunting cabins on the Main Tract, several barn sites where agricultural 

chemicals may have been stored, and three trash dumps on the Cortland, Reichle, 

and Harper Tracts. Of these, Patnode felt that only the dump on the Reichle 

Tract warranted further evaluation based on numerous drum carcasses, waste 

indicative of automotive repairs, and waste present in a tributary. The refuge 

plans to request funding to sample the soil, sediment, and water associated with 

this dump to facilitate removal of the waste. All but two of the old hunting cabins 

have been subsequently removed in a joint partnership between the refuge and 

the WVDEP Rehabilitation Environmental Action Plan (REAP) program.

A Phase II Contaminants Survey was performed in 2000 for the active gas 

well site on Tract 42 prior to the purchase. Diesel fuel oil, waste water (brine), 

hydraulic fluid, and mercury were identified as potential contaminants. Samples 

taken from immediately adjacent to and down gradient of the waste water 

storage tank had low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons and mercury. Patnode 

noted that an area of dead vegetation still exists between the storage tank and 

Soils

Environmental 

Contaminants
2-4 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Physical Environment

the wetland which may be due to salt toxicity from the brine solution. To prevent 

migration when the tank is emptied in the future, a berm should be installed 

around the tank by the well operator.

The primary contamination concern for this refuge is the potential for spills and 

waste associated with the current and future wells/pipelines or mines as most 

of the property was purchased without mineral rights. A secondary concern is 

the atmospheric deposition of pollutants from industries and coal-fired power 

plants due to the topography, elevation, acid precipitation, and high potential 

for mercury methylation within the wetlands. A sample of stream salamanders 

analyzed for metals contained selenium concentrations of risk for water shrew. 

Mercury in these salamanders did not pose a risk, but methylation in streams is 

low compared to wetlands. NOAA mercury deposition data should be evaluated to 

determine if biota sampling in the wetlands is warranted.

Water Quality

The primary river draining the refuge is the Blackwater River. 

Seven named tributaries and numerous smaller streams exist 

throughout the refuge that flow into the Blackwater as it makes its 

way from the headwaters in the State Park to the Canaan-Brown 

Mountain gap where it exits the valley and the refuge. The refuge 

contains the headwaters area of the Little Blackwater River and 

Glade Run as well as most of Idleman’s Run and Freeland Run. 

Additionally, land acquisition in 2005 and 2008 protected much of 

the North Branch River and Flat Run, important tributaries and 

circumneutral wetland corridors in the south end of the valley.

Increased development in the southern portion of the valley 

has heightened concerns of water quality and availability in the 

Blackwater River. Wastewater from recreational and other 

developments is typically treated with aeration plants, lagoons, 

or individual septic tanks. In 1998 there were three wastewater 

facilities that discharged directly into the Blackwater River. 

There were 12 additional wastewater facilities that discharged 

directly into tributaries of the Blackwater. Currently there are 

plans to create new centralized, shared wastewater treatment 

facilities to upgrade current systems and allow growth of 

developed areas.

Ground water quality was described as being primarily influenced by the mineral 

composition of the source rock with septic discharges and agricultural land use 

practices influencing it to a lesser extent (Chambers et al. 2002). Within ground 

water samples, commonly detected contaminants were bacteria, radon, and 

manganese. However, most ground water samples taken during a U.S. Geological 

Survey 1991 survey did not exceed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

standards (Chambers et al. 2002).

With increasing development in the southern portion of the valley, more water 

will be removed from the watershed. Importantly, surface waters removed 

during the summer and fall low flow periods may impact aquatic resources. 

According to Kozar (1995) “In excess of one-third of available surface water 

resources is being used during low flow period” in the valley. Impacts of this use 

are obvious on Idleman’s Run, which flows dry in late summer and early fall and 

also harbors a productive brook trout fishery. A water diversion removes surface 

water from the upper reaches of Idleman’s Run to supply water to an emergency 

snow making pond at a development on Timberline Road. This exacerbates low 

water flow, increased stream temperatures, and direct loss of habitat for brook 

Lower Idleman’s Run

Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-5

Physical Environment

trout populations on the refuge during the fall breeding season. As development 

increases in the valley, water resources will likely continue to be tapped and 

impacted in both quantity and quality.

Water quality analysis has been conducted primarily in main stem of the 

Blackwater River within Canaan Valley. Early testing (1970’s) was conducted 

to develop base line conditions to measure change against if the hydroelectric 

project was completed by Allegheny Power. Testing was also conducted to 

evaluate impacts to water quality by developments such as the State Park and 

Timberline Four Seasons Resort. 

Most recently, water quality has been studied by the USGS and the West Virginia 

Division of Environmental Protection for the development of total maximum 

daily load limits. The Blackwater River was found to have dissolved oxygen 

limit levels below the recommended as a state minimum for a trout fishery 

(6.0mg/l). This problem was attributed primarily to municipal point sources in 

the valley; however beaver ponds and wetlands upstream from the sampling site 

have also been implicated in reducing dissolved oxygen levels in the Blackwater 

(Environmental Protection Agency 1998).

The Service and USGS conducted a study of the effects of off-road vehicle use 

on water quality of the Blackwater River in 1993. This particular study was 

designed around an off-road vehicle race which brought hundreds of participants 

into the Canaan Valley and lower Blackwater River drainage. Samples were 

collected before, during, and after the race and analyzed for dissolved oxygen, 

suspended sediment, fecal bacteria concentrations, pH, and turbidity. This 

study found increases in suspended sediment concentrations, turbidity, and fecal 

bacteria concentrations related to the off-road vehicle activities, particularly 

around camp areas, within the Blackwater River. (USFWS 1993). 

According to Snyder et al. (2002) acid rain may be having an important impact 

on stream quality in Canaan Valley. Due to the sandstone geology in the higher 

elevation streams and the low pH of precipitation (3.86-4.41 in 1995-1996), it was 

estimated that almost half of all streams and ponds in Canaan Valley would not 

support brook trout (Snyder et al. 2002). According to some studies, the lower 

limit of brook trout embryo and hatchling survival is a pH of 4.5. Streams that 

occur in the lower elevations of the valley can be influenced by the Greenbrier 

limestone which can offset and buffer low pH waters and create suitable brook 

trout habitat.

Unexploded Ordnance

The refuge recently became aware of the presence of unexploded ordnance left 

over from military training activities during World War II on refuge lands. 

Previously thought to have only occurred east of the refuge boundary in the 

Dolly Sods Wilderness area, a live 105mm artillery round was found by a hunter 

on refuge property during the spring of 2007. After consultation with the Army 

Corps of Engineers and a review of historic maps, it became evident that the 

target areas used by the military during the war included areas now part of the 

Canaan Valley refuge, well down slope from the ridgeline closer to the Dolly Sods 

Wilderness Area.

The extent of what is now the refuge that was actually used for target practice 

activities is unknown. The only information available is in historical maps 

indicating potential target areas and the actual live round found in 2007. No 

other ordnance has been found; however, the Army Corps of Engineers has not 

yet conducted a comprehensive sweep of known bombing target areas on refuge 

property.
2-6 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Regional Economic Setting

The refuge currently partners with NOAA to provide a site location for an air 

monitoring station. The station, located on the Beall Tract of the refuge, is part 

of the Atmospheric Integrated Research Monitoring Network and is part of the 

National Atmospheric Deposition Program. The purpose of this monitoring site is 

to collect data on atmospheric wet and dry deposition along with other air quality 

data. The station has been operational on refuge property since 2000. 

Monitoring activities include ozone levels in the Canaan Valley. Overall air 

quality is good, with no current criteria pollutants exceedances, but of recent 

concern is ground level ozone which has exceeded the EPA 8-hr standard (75 

ppb) for safe health levels on 1-5 days per year from 1995 to present. Ozone has 

been cited as not only important in protecting human health but also as a direct 

threat to vegetation and plant communities in the eastern United States (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1996). Ozone levels were found to be in excess 

of the 8 hour standard (>0.08ppm) in Canaan Valley during the years 1995-1999 

at a monitoring site on Bearden Knob on the southwestern side of the valley. 

Additionally the levels of ozone detected at this site exceeded levels considered 

harmful to wide ranges of vegetative communities (Edwards et al. 2004).

The Canaan Valley region is a unique mountain valley, with habitats, plants, and 

animals typically found at higher latitudes. The refuge works to preserve unique 

wetlands and uplands of this high elevation, moist valley (USFWS 2006b). Canaan 

Valley refuge is located in Tucker County, West Virginia, in the northeastern 

portion of the state known as the Potomac Highlands Region. In 1994, with the 

purchase of 86 acres, Canaan Valley refuge became the nation’s 500th refuge. 

Currently, the refuge consists of over 16,000 acres. Over 8,932 additional acres 

are within its acquisition boundary. The acquisition boundary encompasses 

most of the wetlands and unique habitats of the valley. Acquisition will continue, 

dependent on willing sellers and availability of funds. 

The refuge is within a few hours’ drive of several large metropolitan areas 

including Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., 

Baltimore, Maryland, and Charlottesville and Richmond, Virginia (Tucker 

County Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2008). For the purposes of an economic 

impact analysis, a region (and its economy) is typically defined as all counties 

within a 30–60 mile radius of the impact area. Only spending that takes place 

within this local area is included as stimulating changes in economic activity. 

The size of the region influences both the amount of spending captured and the 

multiplier effects. While the refuge is located in Tucker County, the city of Elkins 

(located in adjacent Randolph County) is economically important to the refuge 

as well. Most of the refuge personnel live in Elkins, and approximately twenty 

five percent of the refuge non-salary purchases are made in Elkins. Randolph 

County is the largest county in West Virginia with a total area of 1,040 square 

miles (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Elkins is located in northern tip of Randolph 

County, 34 miles southwest of the refuge. The refuge’s economic ties to Randolph 

County do not extend past Elkins. Based on the relative self-containment in 

terms of retail trade, Tucker County and the city of Elkins were assumed to 

comprise the local economic region for this analysis. 

Population

Table 2.1 shows the population estimates and trends for the regional area and 

communities near the refuge. In 2000, the city of Elkins and Tucker County 

were similar in terms of population size with 7,032 residents in Elkins and only a 

few hundred more (7,321) in Tucker County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Davis, 

Thomas, and Parsons are the principal communities in Tucker County located 

near the refuge. In 2000, Tucker County was the third least populated county in 

the state and accounted for less than one percent of the state’s total population 

Regional Economic 

Setting

Local and Regional 

Demographics

Air Quality
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-7

Regional Economic Setting

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). The town of Parsons was the only community 

that resembled the state’s 0.8% population growth rate, with a 0.7% population 

increase from 1990-2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Elkins and Tucker County 

experienced population declines of approximately 5% between 1990-2000 while 

the smaller communities of Davis and Thomas experienced larger declines of over 

21% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).

Table 2.1. Local and regional population estimates and characteristics.

Population in 2000 Population 

change 

Residents Persons per 

square mile Median age 1990 to 2000

West Virginia 1,808,344 75.1 38.9 +0.8%

Tucker County 7,321 17.5 42.0 -5.3%

 communities near refuge

 Elkins (Randolph County) 7,032 2,207.7 38.8 -5.5%

 Davis (Tucker County) 624 546.0 41.5 -21.9%

 Thomas (Tucker County) 452 753.6 47.8 -21.1%

 Parsons (Tucker County) 1,463 1,332.5 39.9 +0.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2008), Census 2000 Summary File (SF-1)

The city of Elkins is located in the heart of West Virginia’s Mountain Highlands 

and serves as the recreation gateway community to the Monongahela National 

Forest with nearby access to the refuge, state parks, forests, and natural 

landmarks (City of Elkins, 2008). Situated on a bend in the Tygart Valley 

River, Elkins was founded by Senators Henry Gassaway Davis and Stephen B. 

Elkins in 1890 and became the Randolph county seat in 1899 (City of Elkins, 

2008). Historically, the area was dominated by agriculture (West Virginia Railsto-Trails Council, 2002). The senators were responsible for bringing the WV 

Central and Pittsburgh Railway into Elkins which opened the surrounding 

territory to development (City of Elkins, 2008). The completion of the railway 

in the late 1890’s made extraction of the large reserves of coal, limestone, shale, 

and timber resources possible and encouraged industrial development of the area 

(West Virginia Rails-to-Trails Council, 2002). 

Approximately 41% of Tucker County, known as the “Top of the Mountain State,” 

is publicly owned land. Parsons, the county seat, is located on Shaver’s Fork of 

the Cheat River and is home to 1,463 residents. The town was incorporated in 

1893 and named for Ward Parsons, a pioneer who owned the land on which the 

town was built (West Virginia Rails-to-Trails Council, 2002). Davis, the highest 

incorporated town in the state at an elevation of 3,200, consists of 624 residents. 

The town has a longstanding tradition with the lumber industry and was known 

in its early years as “Canada,” due to its dense forest of spruce and hardwoods 

(Town of Davis, West Virginia, 2006). Thomas, home to 452 residents is only 2.5 

miles from Davis. Like many towns in the region, Thomas has its roots in the 

coal industry. By 1892, Davis Coal and Coke was one of the largest coal plants 

in the world, employing 1,600 people in Thomas (Tucker County Convention and 

Visitors Bureau, 2006).
2-8 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Regional Economic Setting

The Census Bureau (2008) reports that in 2000, West Virginia’s population 

consisted of 95% white persons not of Hispanic or Latino origin. Tucker County 

(98.9%), and the communities of Elkins (96.9%), Davis (97.9%), Thomas (98.7%) 

and Parsons (99%) all had averages greater than the state average in 2000. The 

percentage of residents identifying themselves as Black or African American, 

American Indian or Native Alaskan, and Asian was 2.2% in Elkins and less 

than 0.5% in Tucker County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Ancestry patterns 

across Elkins, Davis, Thomas and Parsons were similar to each other with heavy 

German, Irish and English influences (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). 

Approximately 71.5% of West Virginia residents 25 years and older are high 

school graduates. Tucker County (75.4%) and the communities of Elkins (79.5%), 

Davis (76.7%), Thomas (84.5%) and Parsons (77.4%) all displayed rates greater 

than the state average. In 2000, the percentage of residents who held a bachelor 

or advanced degree was 14.8% for the state of West Virginia while the national 

average was 24.4% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Elkins (23.4%) exceeded the 

state average while Tucker County (10.5%) and the communities of Davis (9.4%), 

Thomas (10.1%), and Parsons (11.8%). were all less then the state average (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2008). 

Employment and Income

Employment estimates (2006) for Elkins, Tucker County, and the state of West 

Virginia are shown in Table 2.2. Generally, Elkins and Tucker County resembled 

the state’s percentage of employment in each industry. Two main differences 

were that the employment in the accommodation and food industry in Tucker 

County was almost 10% higher than the state average and Elkins employment 

in educational, health and social services industries was over 14% higher than 

the state average. Government employment accounted for almost 17% of West 

Virginia’s total employment in 2006, a greater percentage than any other sector. 

Government was also the largest employer in Tucker County and the second 

largest employer in Elkins in 2006. In 2006, construction, manufacturing, 

retail trade and the finance, insurance, real estate, and information industries 

were other main industries providing employment in Tucker County. Other 

main industries providing employment in Elkins in 2006 were retail trade 

and the arts, entertainment, recreation, and accommodation and food services 

(U.S. Census, 2008).

Visitor center

USFWS
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-9

Regional Economic Setting

Table 2.2. 2006 full-time and part-time employment for West Virginia, Tucker County and Elkins

West 

Virginia

Tucker 

County Elkins**

 Total non-farm employment (jobs) 860,554 3,697 5,791

Percent of Employment by Industry

Ag, forestry, fish & hunting 0.5% (D)* 2.5%

Mining & Utilities 4.4% (D)* --**

Construction 6.6% 8.1% 5.3%

Manufacturing 7.1% 8.2% 10%

Wholesale trade 3.1% (D)* 3%

Transportation & warehousing 3.0% 2.8% 2.7%

Retail trade 12.7% 10.4% 11%

Finance, insurance, real estate, & information 7.4% 7.6% 5.6%

Services

 Professional, management, admin., & waste 9.4% (D)* 8.2%

 Health care, social assistance, & educational 14.0% 11.1% 28.6%

 Arts, entertainment, & recreation 1.9% 1.3% --**

 Accommodation & food 7.1% 17.0% 10.2%

 Other services 6.2% 7.0% 4.9%

Government (federal, state, & local) 16.8% 19.0% 17.8%

Source: State and County level data from U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

Regional Economic Information System 2008. Self-employment is not included. 

(D)*: Data suppression. Data not shown to protect confi dential information, but the estimates for these 

items are included in the totals

**Elkins data from U.S. Census (2008), Arts, Entertainment & Recreation included in Accommodation 

and food, Mining was not reported

U.S Census Bureau (2008) data for median household income, unemployment and 

percentage of persons living below poverty are shown in Table 2.3. As shown in 

Table 2.3, Tucker County and all the communities included in the study area were 

below the state and national averages for median household income. The national 

average unemployment rate in 2000 was 3.7%, and West Virginia’s average 

unemployment rate was 4.0% in the same year. Thomas (3.6%) was the only 

community in the study area with an unemployment rate lower than the state 

and national averages. The percent of population below the federal poverty line 

is an indicator of the economic distress within a community. In 1999, the national 

average of individuals living in poverty was 12.4%. West Virginia’s average was 

17.9%. Tucker County (18.1%) exceeded both the state and national averages. 

Elkins (14.4%), Davis (14.6%) and Thomas (13.7%) were greater than the national 

average, but less than the county and state averages. Parsons (18.7%) has the 

greatest percentage of its residents living below the poverty line of the towns in 

the study area (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008) (Table 2.3).
2-10 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Recreation and Tourism

Table 2.3. Income, unemployment and poverty estimates

Median Household Income 

(1999) Percent Unemployed (2000) Percent of Persons below Poverty (1999)

United States Average $41,994 3.7% 12.4%

West Virginia $29,696 4.0% 17.9%

Tucker County $26,250 4.2% 18.1%

Elkins (Randolph County) $26,906 4.7% 14.4%

Davis (Tucker County) $25,221 5.2% 14.6%

Thomas (Tucker County) $22,443 3.6% 13.7%

Parsons (Tucker County) $26,424 4.3% 18.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2008)

The travel and tourism industry continues to be a significant and growing 

contributor to the West Virginia economy. According to a recent report on the 

economic impact of travel on West Virginia, travel-generated spending totaled 

over $3.97 billion, supporting 44,000 jobs with $854 million in earnings (Dean 

Runyan Associates, 2007). According to the report, travel spending in West 

Virginia increased by 8.8% per year from 2000 to 2006. In 2006, travel generated 

earnings accounted for 12.4% of total earnings in Tucker County and 1.6% of 

total earnings in Randolph County while travel generated employment accounted 

for 19.1% of total employment in Tucker County and 3.4% of total employment in 

Randolph County (Dean Runyan Associates, 2007).

With many acres of public land, including the refuge, the Monongahela National 

Forest, and Blackwater Falls and Canaan Valley state parks, Tucker County 

and the greater Canaan Valley offer numerous outdoor recreation activities. 

Popular activities include hunting, camping, mountain biking, fishing, whitewater 

rafting, and canoeing. Winter recreation activities are another major attraction 

in Tucker County with Canaan Valley Resort State Park and Timberline Resort 

for downhill skiing, and White Grass Touring Center (White Grass) for crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing. On average, the resorts receive between 150 

and 200 inches of snowfall each year. (Tucker County Convention and Visitors 

Bureau, 2008). Details about the economic contributions associated with wildlife 

viewing, fishing, and hunting in West Virginia are provided below.

Wildlife Viewing

Abundant opportunities are available throughout West Virginia for formal 

wildlife education or recreational viewing. Wildlife viewing can include the 

activities of observing, identifying, and photographing. The 2006 National 

Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation (FHWAR) asks 

respondents about wildlife viewing around their homes and trips taken for the 

primary purpose of wildlife watching (USDOI et al. .2008). In 2006, there were 

a total of 743,000 wildlife watching participants (residents and nonresidents) in 

West Virginia with over 4 million days of participation away from home. Spending 

associated with wildlife watching in West Virginia totaled $241.6 million in 2006; 

Recreation and 

Tourism
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-11

Recreation and Tourism

of which 56% ($136.1 million) were trip related expenditures and 44% ($105.5 

million) were spent on equipment and other expenses (USDOI et al. 2007). 

According to a Service report, on the national and state economic impacts of 

wildlife watching (USDOI et al. 2003), accounting for the multiplier effect, 

spending by resident and nonresident wildlife watchers in West Virginia in 2001 

generated $252.5 million in output, $74.7 million in wages, 3,946 jobs, and $6.4 

million in state sales tax revenue. This accounted for 0.5% of total employment 

and 0.4% of employment income in West Virginia (USDOI et al. 2003).

Hunting

The FHWAR indicates that hunting participation in the U.S. declined from 14.1 

million in 1991 to 13 million in 2005 (USFWS 2007d). Data from the 1991, 1996, 

2001, and 2006 FHWAR indicate that the declines were attributable to declines 

in both recruitment of new participants and retention of former participants. 

According to Curtis Taylor, chief of the Wildlife Resources Section of the West 

Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR), hunting numbers in West 

Virginia have stayed fairly consistent and are not following the declining national 

trend (Darst, 2008). Hunting on the refuge has stayed consistent as well with an 

average of 1,837 hunting permits issued annually. 

In 2006, there were a total of 269,000 resident and non resident hunters in West 

Virginia. Residents of West Virginia accounted for 72% of total hunters and 86% 

of the 3.9 million days of hunting in West Virginia (USDOI et al. 2007). According 

to USDOI and others (2007), hunting related expenditures by state residents and 

nonresidents in West Virginia totaled $284.5 million in 2006; of which 28% ($79.4 

million) were trip related expenditures and 72% ($205.1 million) were spent on 

equipment and other hunting-related expenses (i.e., membership dues, licenses, 

permits and land leasing). According to a report by Southwick Associates (2007) 

accounting for the multiplier effect, spending by resident and nonresident hunters 

in West Virginia generated; $453.5 million in output, $133.2 million in income, 

6,337 jobs, and $29.6 million in state and local sales taxes in 2006.

Fishing

The FHWAR indicates that fishing participation in the U.S. declined from 35.6 

million in 1991 to 34.1 million in 2005 (USDOI et al. 2007). Similar to hunting, 

the FHWAR data indicate that the declines were attributable to declines in both 

recruitment of new participants and retention of former participants. 

In 2006, more than 376,000 people in West Virginia participated in freshwater 

fishing. West Virginia residents accounted for 77% of total freshwater anglers 

and 94% of the 6.9 million days of freshwater fishing in West Virginia (USDOI 

et al. 2007). Direct spending in West Virginia by state resident and nonresident 

freshwater anglers totaled $334 million in 2006; of which 46% ($154 million) 

were trip related expenditures and 54% ($180 million) were spent on equipment 

and other expenses (USDOI et al. 2007). According to a report by Southwick 

Associates (2007b) accounting for the multiplier effect, spending by resident and 

nonresident anglers in West Virginia generated $485.3 million in output, $137.9 

million in income, 6,617 jobs, and $29.2 million in state and local sales taxes 

in 2006.
2-12 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

The Refuge and its Resources

This section presents an overview of land uses within the study area and 

emphasizes land use patterns of the watershed within the existing refuge 

acquisition boundary.

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge was first designated administratively 

by the Service in a decision document released on May 30, 1979. However, the 

Service decided to await the outcome of litigation surrounding a proposed 

storage hydroelectric facility before establishing the new refuge. The refuge was 

established on August 11, 1994 upon Service acquisition of the first tract of land. 

The Service has acquired lands for the Canaan Valley refuge under the following 

authorities:

1) Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)]

2) Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901b]

3) Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1926 [16 U.S.C. 715d]

Table 2.4 gives the land acquisition history of the refuge. See map 2-1 for the 

status of lands within the refuge’s acquisition boundary.

We anticipate that the Service will continue to acquire lands within the approved 

acquisition boundary under the same authorities that have been used to acquire 

lands in the past. Based on refuge purposes, lands could also be acquired under 

several other legislative authorities, including but not limited to:

■ Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1534]

■ National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act [16 U.S.C. 668dd(b)]

Table 2.4. Land acquisition history for Canaan Valley refuge. 

Calendar Year Total Acreage Location Funding Source

1994 141.39 Tucker County LWCF

1995 585.37 Tucker County LWCF

1996 38.92 Tucker County LWCF/Other

1997 59.66 Tucker County LWCF

1998 922.28 Tucker County LWCF

1999 1,501.46 Tucker County LWCF

2000 43.35 Tucker County LWCF

2001 10.37 Tucker County LWCF

2002 11,961.43 Tucker & Grant County LWCF

2004 560.90 Tucker County LWCF/MBCF

2005 1.10 Tucker County LWCF

2006 106.68 Tucker County LWCF/MBCF/Other

2008 120.10 Tucker County LWCF

2009 140.75 Tucker County LWCF

Total 16,193.76

The Refuge and its 

Resources

Land Acquisition History
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-13

Map 2-1 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge: Ownership Status
2-14 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

The Refuge and its Resources

The current staff (2009) consists of seven permanent employees: a refuge 

manager, a deputy refuge manager, two wildlife biologists, a park ranger (public 

use), a park ranger (law enforcement), and an engineering equipment operator. 

In addition, there are two term (4 year) positions: a biological technician (wildlife) 

and an office automation clerk. Permanent staff, operations, and maintenance 

budgets over the last five years are included in Table 2.5. Operations funding 

includes those funds used for salaries, contracts, field projects, supplies, fuel, and 

utilities. Operations funding is split into 1261 (wildlife and habitat management), 

1263 (visitor services), and 1264 (refuge law enforcement) fund sources. 

Maintenance funding (1262) is used for maintaining the existing infrastructure, 

Youth Conservation Corps (YCC), and equipment replacement.

Significant maintenance projects completed over the last several years have 

included construction of a new maintenance building, headquarters parking 

area renovation, and repairs on Forest Road 80 and A-Frame Road. Additional 

funding was appropriated for construction of a residence building which was 

completed in 2006, new exhibits for the Visitor Center completed in 2006, and a 

native plant garden complete in 2007. The following costs have been incurred over 

the past four years.

Refuge Residence Building: $250,000

Maintenance Building: $742,600

Forrest Road 80 and Headquarters parking area: $118,000

A-Frame Road: $360,000

Visitor Center exhibits: $396,000

Table 2.5. Refuge budgets from 2002 to 2008

Year Permanent Staff 1261 Funds 1262 Funds

2002 6 615,400 50,000

2003 6 729,425 92,250

2004 7 691,698 50,000

2005 8 751,169 68,600

2006* 7 756,390 90,455**

2007* 7 747,122 82,214**

2008* 7 831,713 76,150**

* The 1261 fi gure depicted here is the total of all 1260 (1261, 1262, 1263, and 

1264) funding less 1262 maintenance, YCC, and vehicle replacement.

** Includes YCC and vehicle replacement.

Partnerships are vital to our success in managing all aspects of the refuge, 

from conserving land, to managing habitats and protecting species, to outreach 

and education, and providing wildlife-dependent recreation. The WVDNR, 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 

Staffing and Budget

Partnerships
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-15

The Refuge and its Resources

Canaan Valley Institute, West Virginia University, Davis & Elkins College, West 

Virginia Highlands Conservancy, the West Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club, 

Trout Unlimited, The Conservation Fund, and The Nature Conservancy have 

been particularly important and valued partners. 

The refuge contributes directly to the economy of Tucker County through annual 

revenue sharing payments. Since 1935, the Service has made Refuge Revenue 

Sharing payments to counties or towns containing lands under its administration. 

The Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s) requires that the revenue sharing 

payments to counties for our purchased land will be based on the greatest of: 

(a) 3/4 of 1 percent of the market value; (b) 25 percent of the net receipts; or 

(c) 75 cents per acre. Land value for this calculation is re-assessed every five 

years. Since this refuge does not charge for entrance or services we have no net 

receipts. The exact amount of the annual payment depends on Congressional 

appropriations, which in recent years have tended to be less than the amount to 

fully fund the authorized level of payments. All of the alternatives will continue 

those payments in accordance with the law, commensurate with changes in the 

appraised market value of refuge lands, and new appropriation levels dictated by 

Congress

Table 2.6 shows payments to Tucker County over the last eight years. The 

decrease in revenue sharing payments over the past several years is due to a 

decrease in national funding that is available for revenue sharing payments. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Payments

Canaan Valley NWR Friends group

USFWS
2-16 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Vegetation and Habitat Resources

Table 2.6. Refuge revenue sharing payments for 2001 through 2007

Fiscal Year Paid Acres Value Payment Percent Payment

1994 Refuge Established 77.9%

1995 86 $180,000 $1,041 77.1%

1996 708 $3,390,000 $14,321 65.7%

1997 747 $4,198,300 $22,816 72.5%

1998 807 $4,974,300 $24,679 66.2%

1999 1,553 $8,050,300 $37,588 62.2%

2000 2,772 $13,146,800 $57,452 57.9%

2001 3,281 $12,085,150 $46,086 50.9%

2002 3,274 $12,085,150 $47,040 48.5%

2003 15,235 $28,085,150 $102,122 46.6%

2004 15,235 $28,085,150 $86,816 41.2%

2005 15,796 $24,418,919 $85,247 46.5%

2006 15,813 $24,608,919 $79,513 43.3%

2007 15,834 $25,011,169 $78,143 41.9%

National Natural Landmark Designation

The Canaan Valley was designated as a National Natural Landmark (NNL) in 

1974; twenty years prior to the establishment of the refuge. This designation 

established the northern 8 miles of the valley, approximately 15,400 acres, as 

a nationally significant natural area. Revision since the establishment of the 

landmark now includes a total of 24,763 acres of which 16,054 are refuge lands. 

The area contains a diverse assemblage of relict northern boreal communities 

and wetlands seldom found in the eastern United States. The valley is unique at 

this latitude with respect to size, elevation, and diversity. Canaan Valley contains 

approximately 8,400 acres of wetlands, which is the largest area of wetlands 

in West Virginia. The landmark status holds no legal obligations; however, the 

Service has a resource management responsibility for high quality habitat types, 

as recognized in the NNL program. As such, all alternatives will uphold the 

founding purposes for the establishment of the NNL and the refuge will work 

with the National Park Service (Park Service) to further the purposes of the 

NNL in keeping with the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Service.

National Wild and Scenic River Designation

The Blackwater River is being studied as a potential river to be included 

as a National Wild and Scenic River (NWSR). The Blackwater River was 

studied under the National River Inventory through the Park Service and was 

determined to possess qualities that would make it suitable for designation. 

Particularly the scenic, fisheries and recreational qualities were found to be 

suitable for this designation. Designation of the river will be determined by the 

Park Service upon review of the river to ensure it meets all necessary criteria.

Canaan Valley is a large, high elevation wetland surrounded by forested upland 

slopes that is well known for its unique assemblage of plants and habitats. The 

valley, which contains the headwaters of the Blackwater River, and extensive 

Special Status Lands

Vegetation and 

Habitat Resources
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-17

Vegetation and Habitat Resources

peatlands and shrub swamps, represents the diversity and abundance of state 

and regionally rare plants and plant communities found in surrounding smaller 

wetlands of the Allegheny Plateau highlands. Information is presented below on 

the important habitats and plant species (including exotic and invasive species) 

present on the refuge. This section ends with a discussion of regional trends for 

important habitats.

The early explorers to Canaan Valley colorfully reported entering a tangled mass 

of impenetrable spruce forest and rhododendron swamp. Historical descriptions 

of the area included statements of extensive laurel thickets, large dead trees 

covered in moss, and dense conifer forests. Other visitors more quantitatively 

wrote of an area which included Canaan Valley, “that nowhere else in the United 

States are now existing denser forests than those of black [red] spruce in the belt 

of country 100 miles in length and from 10 to 20 in breadth” (Rives 1898). Red 

spruce, eastern hemlock, and yellow birch were the principal canopy species, 

and rhododendron grew in dense “brakes of great extent.” Mosses, lycopodiums, 

and occasionally wood sorrel and trilliums formed a sparse ground cover. Open 

glades, presumably of grasses, sedges, and forbs, followed the serpentine stream 

corridors on the valley’s floor. 

Severe ecological disturbances to the area’s forests occurred in the late 1800s 

and early 1900s. Logging began in the Canaan Valley area around 1885, and 

continued until the 1920s (Carvell 2002). Following the clearcutting, the peat and 

humus dried and fires and erosion removed the accumulated soils, slowing the 

revegetation of the slopes and wetlands. Settlers converted the former forest 

land to pasture. In the mid-1900s, farmers converted some pasture to crops. 

Each of these land uses is represented within the refuge, and current community 

types reflect their history. 

Canaan Valley lies within the Allegheny 

Mountain section of the Central 

Appalachian broadleaf forest-coniferous 

forest-meadow province (Bailey et al. 

1994). Habitats on the refuge include 

freshwater wetland (34%, 5,407 acres), 

open water and riverine (1%, 166 acres), 

and upland (65%, 10,481 acres). We 

grouped all the habitats on the refuge into 

three broad habitat types: wetlands, upland 

early successional habitat, and upland 

forest. Within some

of these broader habitats types we have 

tiered out finer habitat types. Under 

wetlands, we have shrub wetlands, 

herbaceous wetlands, and open water. 

Under early successional habitats we 

have shrubland, old field, and managed 

grasslands. And under upland forest we 

have northern hardwood forest and conifer 

(spruce)/mixed forest. See Table 2.7 of the 

broad habitat types and their associated 

finer habitat types.

Habitats and Vegetation 

Communities

Jacob’s ladder

Ken Sturm/USFWS
2-18 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Vegetation and Habitat Resources

Table 2.7. Habitat types within the current refuge acquisition boundary.

Habitat Type NVCS1 Association Acres owned by 

the refuge*

Acres not 

owned by the 

refuge

Freshwater Wetlands

Forested Wetlands

(conifer, deciduous)

Balsam fir – black ash swamp 

Balsam fir – oatgrass swamp

Balsam fir – winterberry swamp 

Red spruce – yellow birch – mannagrass swamp 

Red spruce – hemlock – rhododendron swamp 

Quaking aspen swamp

347 167

Shrub Wetland

(shrub swamp /mixed, 

speckled alder, spirea)

Blueberry – bracken fern shrub swamp 

Bushy St. John’s-wort shrub swamp 

Chokeberry – wild raisin shrub peatland

Meadowsweet shrub swamp 

Silky willow shrub swamp 

Speckled alder shrub swamp 

Speckled alder – arrowwood shrub swamp Steeplebush shrub 

swamp 

3,177 668

Herbaceous Wetland

(peatland, wet meadow, 

sedge meadow)

Cottongrass fen 

Silvery sedge fen 

Threeway sedge fen 

Nodding sedge fen – prickly bog sedge seep 

Star sedge fen 

Lake sedge fen 

Beaked sedge fen 

American bur-reed marsh 

Bluejoint grass wet meadow 

Woolgrass wet meadow 

Tussock sedge wet meadow 

Rice cutgrass marsh 

Softstem bulrush marsh 

Goldenrod wet meadow 

1,883 310

Open Water/Aquatic

(ponds, streams, river, 

other impoundments)

Water 166 43

Upland Early Successional 

Shrubland

(upland mixed shrub)

Meadowsweet shrubland*

Bushy St. John’s-wort shrubland*

Spirea

859 470

Old field

(upland old field/

meadow)

Goldenrod-sheep fescue/oat grass -bracken fern*

Successional old field meadow*

Hawthorn savannahs*

2,495 1,391

Managed Grasslands 512 6
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-19

Vegetation and Habitat Resources

Habitat Type NVCS1 Association Acres owned by 

the refuge*

Acres not 

owned by the 

refuge

Upland Forest

Northern Hardwood 

Forest

(Upland deciduous)

Central Appalachian northern hardwood forest 

Central Appalachian hemlock – northern hardwood forest 

Yellow birch / eastern rough sedge – marsh blue violet / wavyleaf moss sloping forested seep 

Rough sedge seep 

Black cherry toe slope forest and woodland*

6,402 5,402

Conifer (spruce) / Mixed 

Forest

(Upland conifer/mix) 

Red spruce – yellow birch / mountain holly / bazzania / hypnum 

forest 

Red spruce – yellow birch – black cherry forest 

Red spruce / mountain laurel – menziesia rocky woodland 

213 431

TOTAL 16,054

NVCS1-National Vegetation Classifi cation System

*Provisional community names for types without NVCS matches.

The wetland complex in the Canaan Valley represents the most significant 

wetland area in the state. An estimated 8,475 acres of wetland occur in the 

valley, of which the refuge currently protects 5,573 acres or 66% of all wetland 

habitats, including water, herbaceous, and woody wetlands, within the Canaan 

Valley watershed. According to previous work by the WVDNR, the wetlands of 

Canaan Valley represent almost 30 percent of the total wetland acreage in the 

state (Evans et al. 1982). The majority of the refuge wetlands occur in the Main 

Tract and Big Cove, draining the Little Blackwater River, Glade Run, Sand Run, 

and the Blackwater River. In the southern end of the refuge, the Herz, Cortland, 

Orders, Freeland, Cooper, and Reichle Tracts support wetland communities. 

The wetland communities in Canaan Valley are diverse. A mosaic of shrub 

swamps, peatlands, and wet meadows provide habitat to a variety of passerines, 

shorebirds, waterfowl, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, including alder 

flycatcher, northern harrier, swamp sparrow, southern bog lemming, Indiana 

bat, black ducks, American woodcock, snipe, American bittern, and Virginia rail. 

Recent dragonfly surveys have documented several rare species in West Virginia 

including the delta-spotted spiketail, comet darner, Hudsonian whiteface, skitailed emerald, and whiteface meadowhawk. 

Similar to the upland habitats, the wetlands of Canaan Valley are reported to 

have been dominated by spruce forests prior to the late 1880s. Remnant stumps 

and roots visible in the peatlands and others uncovered in a soil study support 

these accounts. Rives (1898) reports open glades, presumably of grasses and 

forbs, in the valley bordering streams and rivers. Beaver activity may have kept 

glades open and successional habitat available. 

Accompanying the logging activity was the building of railroad and road grades 

crossing the valley floor. These grades were elevated above the wetland by 

piling rock and debris into the wetland, creating impoundments and altering the 

hydrology of the valley. Many of these grades are still acting as impediments 

to water flow, and plant communities can vary significantly from one side of the 

impoundment to the other. 

Freshwater Wetland 

Habitat
2-20 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Vegetation and Habitat Resources

Prior to refuge acquisition of the Main Tract, use of the wetlands was open to the 

public and largely unregulated. A yearly event during the 1980s, the Blackwater 

100 attracted thousands of spectators and all-terrain vehicles, motocross, “mudbuggy”, and “bog-truck” riders for races and events in the wetlands. These 

activities removed vegetation, peat accumulation, and soil in the high-use areas. 

Vegetation is regrowing in some areas; other locations remain eroded and 

unvegetated. Some of the tracks or pathways have become channelized and act as 

barriers to surface water flow (Map 2.1).

Beaver are active in Canaan Valley. Abandoned ponds succeed to vegetated 

habitat, and woodlands and shrublands in the wetlands near active ponds are 

used for foraging. This cycle of succession continuously, albeit slowly, alters 

wetland habitats in the valley.

The bottomland communities are shrub wetlands, herbaceous wetlands, and 

forested wetlands. The shrub wetland communities (alder, spirea, and other 

species) in the valley have been reported to be the fourth largest in the eastern 

United States, exceeded only by sites in Kentucky, Vermont, and Maine 

(Vogelmann 1978).

Shrub wetland communities in Canaan Valley primarily include speckled alder 

swamps, spirea thickets, and mixed shrub swamps. Speckled alder is one of the 

dominant shrubs in Canaan Valley, covering approximately 14% of the refuge 

wetlands. Alder is valued for the habitat it provides to American woodcock and 

other species using early successional habitat. Alders in mature stands reach 3-4 

meters in height, and approach 10 cm in diameter. The understory and ground 

cover of the alder stands appears to depend upon the hydrologic regime and soil 

and water acidity. In the circumneutral alder stands, a diversity of herbaceous 

plants can be found, including manna-grasses, arrowleaf tearthumb, and Jacob’s 

ladder, a state species of concern. Accompanying the alder in the canopy are 

red spruce, yellow birch, balsam fir, and black ash. Balsam fir and black ash are 

considered rare in West Virginia. Nutrient-poor stands of alder may contain 

wild raisin, winterberry holly, and elderberry in the shrub layer. Sedges, bog 

goldenrod, sphagnum and haircap mosses occur as ground cover. Although 

abundant in Canaan Valley, the occurrence of rare species in these shrublands 

and the wetland character of the shrublands, classifies these habitats as rare 

(Fortney et al. 2005).

Typical alder swamps in Canaan are seasonally to semi-permanently inundated, 

holding standing water for most of the growing season. The stands border the 

major streams of the valley, including Glade Run, the Little Blackwater, the 

North Branch of the Blackwater, and the headwaters of the main stem of the 

Blackwater River. 

In the 1970s, WVDNR biologists experimentally planted a stand of alder, in an 

area known as the potato field. Seed for the planting was collected from Canaan 

Valley and grown at a nursery in Parsons, Tucker County (Walt Lesser, personal 

communication). More recently, refuge staff experimented with cutting a 3⁄4 acre 

patch of alder to observe the root sprouting potential for regenerating alder 

stands. Staff also collected alder seed from the refuge. The U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s Plant Materials Center in Alderson is growing the seed, which 

refuge staff has begun to transplant onto the refuge to increase the succession 

rate of wet meadows into shrubland habitat more suitable for priority migratory 

bird species.

Shrub Wetland
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-21

Vegetation and Habitat Resources

Meadowsweet spirea forms dense thickets covering over 452 acres of the refuge. 

Steeplebush spirea forms a rarer plant community type, of a few acres. These 

thickets are more frequent in the southern and western wetlands in the valley. 

Spirea may form pure stands or mix with willow and alder. Often impenetrable 

and growing to two meters, spirea stands have very little vegetation in the 

understory. Fortney suggests that the spirea stands have developed on poorly 

drained abandoned meadows, quadrupling in area since 1945 (Fortney 1997).

The largest wetland plant community is shrub swamp of a diversity of species, 

comprising nearly 1,943 acres, or 35% of the total wetland acreage of the refuge. 

The species of these shrublands are Glade St. Johnswort, chokeberry, wild raisin 

(a viburnum), arrowwood viburnum, blueberry and huckleberry, mountain laurel, 

and willow. The wetland surrounding the confluence of the Little Blackwater and 

the Blackwater Rivers is predominately mixed shrub swamp. 

The wetland communities, chokeberry and blueberry, are considered a rare 

habitat type in the Allegheny Mountain ecoregion (Fortney et al. 2005). These 

communities may be mixed with the viburnums, and typically occur over 

peatlands or, in less saturated conditions, over dewberry and haircap moss. 

Glade St. John’s wort is a low shrub that grows along streams and in adjacent 

poorly drained to saturated low fields. It may be found mixing with velvet-leaf 

blueberry, and with forbs such as bog goldenrod, grass-leaved goldenrod, and 

sedges. Willows typically grow in more nutrient-rich, saturated soils near flowing 

streams and seeps.

Herbaceous wetland habitats in Canaan Valley include both peatlands and wet 

meadows and comprise 1,883 acres on the refuge. Peatlands are acidic fens 

receiving drainage and nutrients from surrounding mineral soils. Two general 

types of peatlands are recognized: those dominated by sphagnum and those 

dominated by haircap moss. Forbs (bog goldenrod, yellow bartonia), grasses and 

sedges (cottongrass, white beakrush), and dwarf shrubs (cranberries, creeping 

snowberry, blueberry, chokeberry) may also occur. The accumulation of mosses 

creates small mounds in a hummock and hollow micro-topography. The deep 

organic soils of the peatlands are seasonally to semi-permanently inundated. As 

a wetland community rarely occurring in the ecoregion outside of Canaan Valley, 

Fortney et al. (2005) classify peatlands as rare habitats. 

The refuge supports 566 acres of peatland, 10% of the total refuge wetlands. 

The largest contiguous peatlands occur in the north-central wetland on the Main 

Tract between Glade Run and the Little Blackwater River, and adjacent to the 

west side of Middle Ridge north of the Blackwater River. 

Wet meadows are low-level expanses of sedges, grasses, rushes, or forbs that are 

seasonally inundated. On the refuge, over 1,317 acres are characterized as wet 

meadow, making it the second most dominant wetland habitat type after shrub 

wetlands. Wet meadows are classified by their dominant species. Sedge, rush, 

and bulrush are the most common dominants. Several species are common in 

these communities: common rush, bluejoint grass, manna-grass, rice cutgrass, 

Scirpus atrocintus, S. macrocarpon, S. atrovirens, Carex folliculata, C. stricta, 

C. scoparia, C. lurida, and C. vulpinoides. Cattails, and a variety of other 

sedges, bulrushes, and rushes also occur. Common forbs are bog goldenrod, 

marsh St. John’s wort, bugleweed, narrow-leaf gentian, and dewberry. 

Wet meadows are interspersed between other community types, creating a 

mosaic of types. They most frequently border streams and drainages and are 

transition communities between the uplands and shrub wetlands. One of the 

largest contiguous wet meadows on the refuge can be found on the Herz Tract.

Herbaceous Wetland
2-22 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Vegetation and Habitat Resources

Bluejoint grass forms dense colonies, often excluding other species. These wet 

meadow community types are considered rare by Fortney et al. (2005) because of 

the rarity of wetlands in the Allegheny Mountain Section ecoregion and because 

several of the species occurring in the wet meadows are West Virginia species of 

special concern.

Forested wetland communities include deciduous and coniferous wetland forests, 

as well as a small amount of planted pine plantation. Together these communities 

make up 347 acres of refuge habitats. Deciduous wetland forests are of two 

types. Quaking aspen groves are found in the Bearden Flats and Glade Run 

wetland complexes, and mixed hardwood communities are found on riverside 

terraces of the Blackwater River and Sand Run. These hardwood forests are 

typically dominated by black cherry, yellow birch, and red maple. Hemlock, red 

spruce, and alder occasionally accompany this mix of species. In many ways this 

habitat resembles the upland deciduous forest—black cherry groves in overstory 

composition. The shrub layer and ground cover however, are typically more 

diverse and reflect the poorly drained to seasonally saturated soils. 

Quaking aspen groves are colonies of even-aged, often mature, aspen, and are 

considered rare by Fortney et al. (2005). Spirea, manna-grasses, and goldenrods 

are typically found in the understory. Regeneration of these groves is not 

naturally occurring. Natural regeneration of aspen does seem to be occurring in 

the northeastern wetlands of Big Cove. Refuge staff is actively managing aspen 

stands to stimulate sapling growth to provide early successional habitat. 

Compared to the reports from the late 1800s of the extensive red spruce forests 

throughout the valley, a small portion of the wetland is currently forested with 

red spruce, eastern hemlock, or balsam fir. Today 2%, or 132 acres, of the refuge 

wetlands are coniferous forest, and Fortney et al. (2005) list these habitat types 

as rare because of their current paucity within the Allegheny Mountain Section 

or because they contain rare plant species. These forests occur on low lying 

sections of Freeland and Cooper Tracts, and along the major riparian corridors 

such as the Blackwater River through Middle Ridge. 

Red spruce, balsam fir, and eastern hemlock are the dominant species in this 

forest type. Red maple, black ash, serviceberry, black cherry, yellow birch 

and mountain ash are co-dominants. During the past ten years, the population 

of balsam fir has declined due to an infestation of the balsam woolly adelgid. 

Additional mortality is caused when beaver flood low lying stands of fir. The 

most extensive stand of balsam fir, on Freeland Tract, is less than half of its size 

ten years ago. Deer browsing eliminates many of the naturally regenerating 

balsam seedlings. In an effort to perpetuate balsam fir on the refuge, staff 

and volunteers plant balsam seedlings grown from Canaan Valley stock. Deer 

exclosures protect the seedlings from browsing. 

Red pine planted forests occur in two locations in Canaan Valley refuge. The first 

location is on the Main Tract adjacent to the Blackwater River upstream from 

the mouth of the Little Blackwater River. The second plantation is on Herz Tract 

adjacent to the Blackwater River downstream from the Old Timberline bridge 

crossing. The history of these plantings is unknown, and they do not appear in 

aerial photographs from 1968, indicating they are less than 40 years old.

Forested Wetland
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-23

Vegetation and Habitat Resources

Two types of open water habitats occur in Canaan Valley. Riverine habitat totals 

approximately 72 acres and beaver ponds and other open water currently total 93 

acres. Fluctuations of beaver pond habitat are natural and directly related to the 

abundance of beaver and available habitat on the refuge. The Blackwater River 

and its tributaries are often deep-channeled, serpentine, meandering streams of 

the valley floor. Impoundments are either natural (beaver ponds) or manmade 

(settling ponds). On the land currently managed by the refuge, the impoundments 

are active and abandoned beaver ponds. The acreage of beaver ponds fluctuates 

almost yearly with changes in beaver activity. Snapping turtles, mink, river 

otters, muskrat, and a variety of ducks, fish, marsh birds, and other mammals 

use these open water habitats. 

The Blackwater River in Canaan Valley remains free-flowing. Sedimentation 

from logging and construction in the valley, unmaintained sewage treatment 

systems, and atmospheric pollution are the major sources of degradation to the 

water quality. The river is stocked with non-native brown and rainbow trout. 

Native brook trout spawn in several streams flowing into the Blackwater River. 

Most of the river channels in Canaan Valley 

are low gradient meanders through the valley’s 

wetlands. In these areas the rivers and streams 

cut deep, soft bottom channels. In the low-lying 

areas, streams are buffered by wetland habitats 

such as wet meadows, alder and other shrub 

thickets, and forested wetlands. The river’s main 

stem takes on another character as it divides 

Middle Ridge, widening and flowing over a rocky 

shallow bottom. Steeply sloped upland mixed and 

deciduous forests border the river in this stretch. 

A multitude of active, abandoned, and relict 

beaver ponds provide open water and emergent 

habitat. Some beaver ponds visible on 1945 aerial 

photos are now wet meadows or shrub thickets 

while others still retain water. Because of these 

varying stages of activity and abandonment, 

the ponds provide a diversity of habitat, from 

shallow to deep, from still water to flowing, and 

a shifting set of plant communities adapted to 

these conditions.

As the beavers exploit woody vegetation for 

forage and construction, rare or important plant 

populations may be threatened. The refuge 

provides a limited number of special use permits 

to trap beaver in designated areas to prevent loss 

of important habitat types. Other communities, 

such as the rare Sparganium chlorocarpum

marsh, are early successional in old beaver ponds 

and depend upon the beaver activity followed by 

abandonment to occur.

Open Water / Aquatic 

Habitats

Boardwalk, Canaan Valley NWR

Marquette Crockett/USFWS
2-24 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Vegetation and Habitat Resources

Upland habitat consists of lands not inundated by water except during 

catastrophic events. Upland habitats in Canaan Valley refuge include the early 

successional and upland forest habitats in Table 2.7: northern hardwood forest, 

conifer (spruce)/mixed forest, managed grasslands, old field, and shrubland. The 

upland areas of the refuge border the wetlands to the west and east, and occur 

on a low sandstone ridge extending into the center of the valley from the south. 

The forests provide nesting habitat for forest-interior songbirds, more general 

forest songbirds (including brown creeper, black-billed cuckoo, veery, hermit 

thrush, and wood thrush), and ruffed grouse. White-tailed deer, black bear, 

fisher, northern watershrew, red-backed and mountain dusky salamanders, and a 

variety of other reptiles, amphibians, and mammals use the upland habitats of the 

refuge. The upland spruce forests provide specialized habitat for saw-whet owl, 

yellow-rumped warbler, blackburnian warbler, snowshoe hare, the West Virginia 

northern flying squirrel, and the threatened Cheat Mountain salamander. The 

grasslands near the valley floor host grassland bird species such as bobolink, 

Henslow’s sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, eastern meadowlark, and savannah 

sparrow. Adjacent shrublands interspersed with grass-forb meadows host 

nesting field sparrows, chipping sparrows, and vesper sparrows.

Much of this upland is believed to have been part of the former expanse of red 

spruce forest. Early records describe the forest composition variously as also 

containing eastern hemlock, black cherry, and American beech. Spruce budworm 

or other infestations may have periodically killed swaths of the upland forests, 

making them more susceptible to lightning-strike fires or blow-downs from 

storms. Otherwise, large-scale disturbances prior to European settlement are 

expected to have been minimal. 

Logging, initially for the red spruce and eastern hemlock, and in a second wave 

of more recent cutting for black cherry and other hardwoods, combined with 

agriculture and recreation uses has altered the composition and structure of 

these upland habitats. Following the logging of the early 1900s, the more gradual 

slopes of Cabin, Canaan, and Brown Mountains, and smaller ridges were cleared 

for pastureland and some later plowed for crops. These lower elevation “toe 

slopes” remain generally un-forested, as grasslands and shrublands.

Managed Grassland

Refuge staff manages several former pastures as open grasslands, primarily for 

grassland bird breeding habitat. Prior to refuge acquisition, these fields were 

actively managed by the landowners as pasture and hayfields. These fields occur 

near the valley floor and on low broad ridges in the southern tracts of the refuge. 

Refuge fields are kept open by mowing, haying, or prescribed burning to slow the 

succession of forbs, woody shrubs, and trees into the fields. The dominant species 

of these fields are introduced cool-season grasses, including sweet vernal grass, 

orchard grass, velvet grass, and timothy. Reed canary grass is invading some of 

the fields and is controlled by herbicide spraying.

Old-Field

Similar to managed grasslands, old-field grasslands and grass-forb meadows are 

former pastures that have not reforested. However, these meadows were typically 

taken out of active management over 40 years ago, when they were purchased by 

the power company. The old-field community type is the second-most dominant 

type on the refuge, occupying approximately 15% of the refuge. These habitats 

occur on the lowest slopes and forest openings of Cabin and Brown Mountains, 

the northern and eastern perimeter of Middle Ridge, and along the eastern edge 

of the Blackwater River south of the confluence with the Little Blackwater River. 

Upland Early Successional 

Habitat

Upland Habitat
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-25

Vegetation and Habitat Resources

Poverty oat grass, deer tongue grass, bracken fern, hay-scented fern, wrinkleleaf and grass-leaf goldenrod, and flat-top aster dominate these meadows. 

Dense patches of the introduced sheep fescue occur in the north-eastern fields 

of the Main Tract. The meadows are broken by patches of Glade St. John’s wort 

and blueberries. Hawthorns grow scattered throughout the meadows, creating 

a savannah-like appearance. The lack of woody regeneration in these fields—

presumably former forest—after several decades of lying fallow, is notable.

Shrubland

In Canaan Valley, upland shrubland habitats occur on approximately 5.3% of 

the refuge lands. These shrublands occupy low slopes adjacent to wetlands 

transitioning to old-field grasslands or upland forests. The Herz tract supports 

the largest contiguous patch of upland shrubland on the refuge. 

Shrubland habitats include pure or nearly pure stands of Glade St. John’s wort, 

mountain holly, or hawthorn, or mixed shrublands that include velvet-leaf and 

upland low blueberries, arrowwood, and wild raisin. To provide singing grounds 

for breeding American woodcock, refuge staff mows approximately 30 acres of 

this habitat type on a rotational basis.

Northern Hardwood Forest

Upland deciduous forests, including northern hardwood forests, are the primary 

cover of the Allegheny Mountain Section ecoregion in West Virginia (67%; NRAC 

& WVCFWRU 2000). In Canaan Valley, northern hardwood forest is currently 

the predominant forest type occurring on over 6,403 acres. The northern 

hardwood forest community type also includes black cherry groves, upland aspen 

groves, and the unvegetated balds and ridges that occur within the forests. 

Within northern hardwood forests, American beech, sugar maple, black cherry, 

and yellow birch are important canopy species. White ash, American basswood, 

hemlock, and red maple may also occur. Ground cover in some areas is dominated 

by hay-scented and New York ferns. In areas without these rhizomatous 

ferns, Lycopodiums, or spring ephemerals such as jack-in-the-pulpit, trillium, 

Dutchman’s breeches, wild leeks, and violets occur. 

Prior landowners logged the northern hardwood forest beginning in the 1980s. 

Some tracts were logged as recently as 2001. Tables 2.8 and 2.9 list the volume 

and species of hardwoods removed during two of the most recent timber sales 

prior to refuge acquisition of the property (Scott Sidle, personal communication).

Table 2.8. Species and volume of hardwoods removed during 1998-2001 by Allegheny Power.

Species Volume, International Scale (board feet) % of Total

Sugar Maple 391,000 5

Red Maple 2,058,000 28

Black Cherry 3,980,000 55

Ash 45,000 0.5

Yellow and Black Birch 27,000 0.5

Beech 262,000 4

Aspen 483,000 7

Total 7,246,000 100

Upland Forest
2-26 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Vegetation and Habitat Resources

Table 2.9. Species and volume of hardwoods removed during 1995-1997 by Allegheny Power.

Species Volume, International Scale (board feet) % of Total

Black Cherry 9,297,000 63

Sugar Maple 1,473,000 10

Red Maple 982,000 7

Basswood 783,000 5

White Ash 1,340,000 9

Other 920,000 6

Total 14,795,000 100

Black cherry groves occur on 250 acres, typically on the low slopes near the 

valley floor. Black cherry (Prunus serotina) is the most important species in 

these groves, often occurring as pure stands. Red maple, serviceberry, quaking 

and big-tooth aspen may also occur, but infrequently. Club mosses, poverty oat 

grass, and blueberry are the dominant ground cover species. Upland quaking 

and big-tooth aspen groves account for approximately 6 acres of the northern 

hardwood forest community type. Goldenrods, bracken ferns, and oat grass 

compose the understory. As an early successional community, the aspen groves 

are being replaced by northern hardwoods. In order to regenerate aspen stands 

by root sprouting for early successional species such as woodcock, refuge staff 

has cut stands of upland quaking aspen. Fortney et al. (2005) consider both 

black cherry and quaking aspen groves rare community types because of their 

infrequent occurrence elsewhere in the Allegheny Mountain Section ecoregion 

(See section 3.2.1.4 for an explanation of rare habitat types).

Upland balds occur on the high shoulder slopes of Cabin Mountain and continue 

outside of the refuge, to the east, ending at the eastern continental divide 

(Allegheny Front). These open grassy habitats and dwarf shrublands are 

dominated by mountain oat grass, wavy hairgrass, and upland low and lowbush 

Fall sunrise, Canaan Valley NWR

Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-27

Vegetation and Habitat Resources

blueberries. Fortney et al. (2005) consider this habitat type rare, and expects 

the open, unforested condition to persist because of extreme temperatures and 

damage to vegetation by wind, ice, and snow.

 Conifer (Spruce) / Mixed Forest

Conifer (Spruce)/mixed forest habitats in Canaan Valley include the hardwood/

conifer mixed upland forests and conifer upland forests that occur on 

approximately 1.3% of Canaan Valley refuge. This percentage is similar to 

the 1.7% occurring within the Allegheny Mountain Section eco-region in West 

Virginia (NRAC & WVCFWRU 2000). Red spruce and coniferous habitats 

are believed to have been the dominant cover within the ecoregion prior to the 

logging of the early 1900s. Forest communities included in this type are Central 

Appalachian hemlock-northern hardwood forest, Central Appalachian sprucenorthern hardwood mixed forest, red spruce forest, red spruce-yellow birch 

forests, and red spruce-hemlock-balsam fir forest. 

The coniferous and mixed forests with a spruce component occur predominantly 

on the refuge’s Kelly-Elkins tract near Cabin knob and Weiss knob on the slopes 

of Cabin Mountain. A spruce-hemlock-hardwood mixed forest occurs to the 

east of the Black Bear Woods housing development, adjacent to the wetlands of 

Bearden Flats. Spruce is regenerating in the understory of deciduous forests on 

the middle elevation slopes of Cabin Mountain, potentially converting these slopes 

to spruce dominated forests over time. A small upland balsam fir forest occurs 

on the Cortland tract. Hemlock-northern hardwood forests typically border the 

high gradient headwater streams of Cabin and Brown Mountains. The refuge 

is actively working on red spruce ecosystem restoration through planting and 

experimental spruce release projects.

There are approximately 4,300 acres of rare habitat within Canaan Valley refuge, 

as defined by Fortney et al. (2005). The authors of this study defined rare plant 

communities as those having at least one of the following characteristics:

1) At least one dominant or co-dominant species with a limited distribution in the 

Allegheny Mountain Section of West Virginia.

2) The community in question must occur in a habitat type that is considered to 

have a limited or restricted distribution in the Allegheny Mountain Section (e.g. 

a wetland or grass bald).

3) The plant community type may be common, but it typically supports one or 

more rare plant species. Because of the overall limited area of wetlands in the 

un-glaciated Plateau, one the principal factors used to asses rarity was the 

occurrence in wetlands.

Forests are the dominant cover, over 80% in the Allegheny Mountain eco-region 

(NRAC & WVCFWRU 2000). Wetlands cover 4%. By Fortney’s definitions, 

because wetland types are uncommon in the Allegheny Mountain Section of West 

Virginia, most of the wetland types in Canaan Valley are rare. Appendix A lists 

the rare plant communities on the refuge. 

Canaan Valley is recognized as having at least 583 plant species (Fortney 1975). A 

list of recently observed plant species on the refuge can be obtained by contacting 

the refuge. Forbs and creeping shrubs are the most abundant group of plants 

from this list, with 229 species. Graminoides (grasses, sedges, rushes, and their 

allies) are the next most abundant, with over 130 species. The number of species 

of ferns and fern allies is 35, and trees and shrubs is 89. Sedges (Carex sp.) are 

the most abundant genus of plants, with 46 species. See Habitats and Vegetation 

Communities, above, for examples of plant species found in various habitat types. 

Rare Habitat Types

Plants, including Rare, 

Exotic and Invasive 

Species
2-28 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Fisheries Habitats and Resources

There are no federally listed threatened or endangered plant species on the 

refuge. The refuge, however, does provide habitat for many rare plant species 

that are tracked by the WVDNR Heritage Program and listed as critically 

imperiled, imperiled, or vulnerable. These plants are considered to be state 

species of concern. This designation does not provide federal protection 

but indicates that the species is unique and/or rare enough to merit special 

consideration by WVDNR. 

Botanists have recorded 73 state species of concern in Canaan Valley. Most of 

these species can be found in appendix A. The large size of Canaan Valley—10 

times larger than other high elevation wetlands in the Allegheny Mountain 

Section ecoregion—supports a diversity of habitats rare in the region. Thus, 

while the valley is home to many state rare plants, few are considered rare 

throughout their entire growing range outside of West Virginia. However, 

twenty-eight species are listed as critically imperiled (S1) by the WVDNR 

Natural Heritage Program. NatureServe and the network of Natural Heritage 

programs rank four species (Appalachian blue violet, glade spurge, Appalachian 

oak fern, and Jacob’s ladder) as globally vulnerable (G3), and none as globally 

imperiled (G1 or G2). 

The cool, moist climate of the valley has maintained favorable growing conditions 

for northern plant species following the last glaciation. Balsam fir represents one 

of 109 plant species that have distinctly northern ranges but are able to persist in 

the valley. Twenty-three of these species and varieties have been reported from 

five or fewer locations in West Virginia (Hudgins and Scott 1988). 

Exotic and invasive species are, so far, uncommon in Canaan Valley. An invasive 

cattail and yellow flag iris are becoming more abundant in nutrient-rich stream 

margins. Reed canary grass forms dense cover in poorly drained fields and 

substitutes poor-quality habitat for breeding grassland birds. For five years, 

refuge staff has controlled reed canary grass in an important grassland bird field 

by mowing and spraying. 

Multiflora rose, autumn olive, barberry, and exotic pasture grasses are relicts 

of the agricultural and homestead use of the area. None are widespread, 

though multiflora rose is abundant in localized patches. Purple loosestrife, 

garlic mustard, Japanese stilt grass and Japanese knotweed grow nearby the 

refuge. Staff has hand-pulled garlic mustard yearly since 2005 and has sprayed 

multiflora rose with herbicide yearly since 2004 to control their spread in the 

area. 

A total of 30 species of fish occur in the rivers, streams, and beaver ponds of the 

refuge and the Blackwater River drainage (Cincotta et al. 2002). Of these, 20 are 

native species and 10 are introduced non-native species. Historically it is likely 

that fish diversity in the Blackwater River headwaters area of Canaan Valley 

was limited due to the interruption and habitat barrier of Blackwater Falls, 

approximately 6 miles downstream from the refuge. These falls present a 65 

foot vertical impasse which prevents migration of fish upstream into the Canaan 

Valley watershed. Fisheries resources were impacted greatly in the early 1900s 

as a result of timber removal and acid mine drainage. Fish species known or 

thought to occur in Canaan Valley are listed in appendix A. A list of the refuge’s 

known and expected vertebrate species can be obtained by contacting the refuge 

or on the refuge website online at http://www.fws.gov/canaanvalley/CVNWRvertebrates.html.

Four fish species once found in the Blackwater River drainage are now 

considered extirpated. These include the blackside dace, fantail darter, northern 

Fisheries Habitats and 

Resources
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-29

Fisheries Habitats and Resources

hogsucker, and river chub. These four species were considered native but possibly 

introduced to the Blackwater watershed. No recent surveys have documented 

these species on the refuge (Cincotta et al. 2002).

It is thought that many of the fish present in the valley occur as a result of either 

accidental angler releases or WVDNR introduced game species. Historical 

records indicate that brook trout were abundant in the Blackwater River before 

logging occurred. However, as railroads were extended into the valley, fires and 

sedimentation reduced water quality. As a result, brook trout disappeared from 

the main stem of the Blackwater River (Zurbuch, 2002). Other species thought to 

occur historically in the Blackwater include creek chub, bluntnose minnow, white 

sucker, stoneroller, Johnny darter, greenside darter, mottled sculpin and redside 

dace (Zurbuch 2002).

The first recorded fish stocking of the Blackwater River occurred in 1909 near 

Davis and consisted entirely of rainbow trout. Brook trout were also stocked 

near this location in 1910. By 1925 the WVDNR recorded stocking 30,000 brook 

trout in the Blackwater River and its tributaries (Zurbuch 2002). Stocking 

currently occurs at two locations on the south end of the refuge by the WVDNR 

(Blackwater River on Route 32 and Blackwater River on Timberline Road). 

Fish currently stocked in the Blackwater River are primarily brown trout and 

rainbow trout.

The WVDNR stocked largemouth bass in beaver ponds in the valley in at least 

1963 and 1964 (WVDNR 1964). Since the refuge has been established, no bass 

stocking on refuge property has occurred. 

About 20 large ponds currently exist but their capacity to support fish habitat 

is unknown. No inventory has been conducted to determine what existing 

beaver ponds still contain fish. Reports from anglers indicate that rock bass and 

largemouth bass are caught in beaver ponds receiving water from Glade Run on 

the east side of the refuge and the Blackwater River on the west side. Sunfish 

species such as bluegill and pumpkinseed are also reported from these ponds.

Brook trout are the only native salmonid to the Blackwater River. Naturally 

reproducing brook trout populations exist in several small cold streams that 

flow into the Blackwater River. Although no refuge-wide survey has been 

accomplished, populations of brook trout are known from Idleman’s Run, 

Freeland Run and Yokum Run. There are historical documentations in the Little 

Blackwater River, North Branch, Flag Run and two other small tributaries in the 

valley. Additionally, some limestone springs have been noted with brook trout on 

the south end of the refuge. 

A survey of Freeland Run in 2001 by WVDNR found 18 brook trout and 17 brown 

trout in a 250 foot section of the stream. Both species were found primarily as 

young of the year fish and indicating successful spawning and recruitment of 

both species. Brown trout likely inhibit habitat expansion by the native brook 

trout and are present in high concentrations in areas such as Freeland Run. A 

survey of Idleman’s Run in 2008 by WVDNR found over 60 brook trout in a 350 

foot section of stream. However, these trout were separated into three disjunct 

areas of the stream due to low water flows, partially caused by an upstream 

water diversion.

Redside dace, a rare medium sized minnow has also been found on the refuge. 

This species is listed as a state species of concern (S1S2) and is known from only 

9 localities in West Virginia (Stauffer et al. 1995). Historic records document this 

species occurring in Freeland Run, Sand Run and the North Branch. Records of 
2-30 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Wildlife

this species in the 1940’s and 1950’s were apparently common in Canaan Valley 

occurring in small tributaries as well as the main stem of the Blackwater River 

(Cincotta et al. 2002). However surveys by the WVDNR in recent years have 

found this species only in Freeland Run and only one individual was found. It is 

possible that habitat alteration from development and other land use practices 

have degraded stream conditions precluding redside dace.

The refuge supports a diversity of wildlife in forest, meadow, riparian and 

wetland habitats. A total of 286 species of fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals 

and birds are known or expected to occur in the Canaan Valley. Much of the 

wildlife is typical of the West Virginia-Pennsylvania highlands border region. 

Commonly observed species include white-tailed deer, raccoon, black bear and 

Canada goose. However, the high elevation and large amount of wetlands provide 

habitat for some species more typical of northern latitudes such as the fisher, 

saw whet owl and Wilson’s snipe. The land is managed and protected to maintain 

biological diversity and to protect and benefit threatened and endangered species 

and resident and migratory birds. There have been wildlife studies in the Canaan 

Valley prior to acquisitions by the Service but most are currently unavailable. 

A list of the refuge’s known and expected vertebrate species can be obtained 

by contacting the refuge or on the refuge website online at http://www.fws.gov/

canaanvalley/CVNWR-vertebrates.html.

Although limited, the refuge provides an important contiguous wetland habitat 

for breeding and migratory waterfowl in West Virginia. Migratory birds are 

seen moving through the area in March-April and August-October. Common 

migratory waterfowl include divers such as lesser scaup, ring-necked duck, 

bufflehead, hooded merganser and dabblers such as green-winged teal and bluewinged teal.

The refuge has small numbers of breeding waterfowl including American black 

ducks, mallards, wood ducks, and Canada geese. Studies conducted from 1980 

through 1993 found Canada geese, mallards, wood ducks, and black ducks to be 

the most abundant waterfowl in Canaan Valley (Michael and Brown 2002). Of the 

species present on the refuge, black ducks are the only species of management 

concern. Listed by the WVDNR as a species of special concern (S2B: very 

rare or imperiled) black ducks breed in secluded beaver ponds, oxbows, and 

wetland areas, mostly in the northern portion of the refuge. Black ducks are 

also a Service species of management concern covered by the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) (ACJV1988) with population and 

management objectives.

Canada geese were brought into the valley by the WVDNR beginning in 1967. 

Between 1967 and 1971 a total of 65 geese were released in Canaan Valley 

(Michael et. al. 1994). The program began through a transplant program to 

encourage a local nesting population in the valley. Since that time, Canada geese 

have been successful in nesting throughout the valley with flocks numbering over 

300 birds. The geese are the only migratory flock in West Virginia, arriving in 

Canaan Valley in the early spring and departing in November. At least some of 

the geese have been reported wintering near Durham, North Carolina (Michael 

1994).

The development of Timberline Resort, a residential community, and the Canaan 

Valley Resort State Park golf course increased the available browse habitat which 

has increased numbers of geese using the area. These developments may have 

allowed goose numbers to increase since the 1980’s. Goose abundance increased 

to a level causing Timberline residential community to initiate an active hazing 

program to prevent goose use of the open water and grassland habitats within 

the development.

Wildlife

Waterfowl
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-31

Wildlife

Waterbirds commonly observed on the refuge include great blue heron, green 

heron, and American bittern. Great Blue and green herons were found to be the 

most abundant waterbirds during surveys conducted from 1980 to 1993 (Michael 

and Brown 2002). All but the great blue heron have been documented as breeding 

birds on the refuge. In fact, the valley is the largest single breeding location in 

the state for American bitterns (Mitchell 2006).

Rails are occasionally heard on the refuge. Breeding records exist only for 

Virginia rail which has been documented in the upper Glade Run marshes and 

in isolated cattail stands throughout the refuge. During migration, sora rails are 

seen in some wetland areas around beaver ponds. King rails (Rallus elegans) may 

also migrate through the valley; however, no recent records exist for this species 

on the refuge.

Only five shorebirds are regularly seen on the refuge: 

greater yellowlegs, spotted sandpiper, solitary sandpiper, 

American woodcock, and Wilson’s snipe. Of these the 

woodcock and snipe are common and breed on the refuge. 

Spotted sandpipers are found during summer months 

and likely breed along streams and beaver ponds on the 

refuge. Greater yellowlegs and solitary sandpipers use the 

refuge during migration in low numbers. 

The refuge serves as one of West Virginia’s largest 

concentration of woodcock and Wilson’s snipe. The valley 

has been noted for a large woodcock migration in the 

fall. Although dated, WVDNR reports that the fall 

population of woodcock likely exceeds 2,200 individuals. 

Resident numbers of woodcock have been estimated at 450 

individuals.

Breeding woodcock surveys have been conducted at the south end of the refuge 

since 1999. Average number of “peenting” males on the refuge has been 3.32 

per route which exceeds the long-term state average of 0.52 males per route. 

Although refuge routes are not chosen randomly and therefore can not be 

directly related to standardized singing ground survey route data, the high 

response rate on refuge routes likely indicates that the refuge is still important 

for breeding woodcock in the state and region.

Woodcock habitat loss in the northeast is largely attributed to successional 

changes in forest and open land and loss of agricultural land through urban 

development. This holds true for Canaan Valley where open land has been 

developed in recent years, grazing has decreased and early successional forest 

cover has matured. Nonetheless, recent research found that the Canaan Valley 

still contained the largest amount of quality habitat in the state (Steketee 2000). 

The refuge conducts habitat management for woodcock including maintaining 

singing ground habitat and improving early successional aspen and alder cover 

for foraging and breeding habitat.

Wilson’s snipe breed on the refuge and it is one of the southern most breeding 

sites for this species in the East. Snipe have a limited distribution in the state 

and have been documented as breeders in only three locations including Canaan 

Valley (Buckelew and Hall 1994). Although no large scale snipe surveys have been 

conducted on the refuge, coincidental surveys of woodcock have documented snipe 

breeding activity. Snipe are typically found throughout the northern portion of 

the refuge during summer months in wetlands and around beaver ponds. Nesting 

snipe have been also documented in the refuges grassland management fields on 

the southern part of the refuge.

Waterbirds and Shorebirds

Common snipe

Ken Sturm/USFWS
2-32 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Wildlife

At least 181 bird species have been recorded in Canaan Valley (Northheimer 

2002). Migratory birds pass through the valley and have been well documented 

by long term banding and monitoring along the Allegheny Front. Refuge 

landbird point counts have documented a total of 104 species breeding on the 

refuge. Almost one third of all species documented during landbird point counts 

are in the sparrow family.

The refuge lies within Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 28; the Appalachian 

Mountain Region, Physiographic Area 12. There are at least 25 species listed 

within Physiographic Area 12 that occur or nest on the refuge. Of these at least 

16 regularly breed on the refuge including golden-winged warbler, Canada 

warbler, Henslow’s sparrow and scarlet tanager. Two of these species (Henslow’s 

sparrow and golden-winged warbler) are also on the American Bird Conservancy 

“Green List” of species with the highest continental conservation concern.

Raptors

A total of 15 raptor species have been documented on the refuge. Common Buteo

raptor species on the refuge include Red-tailed hawk, broad-winged hawk, and 

red-shouldered hawk. Both red-shouldered and broad-winged hawks are known 

to nest in the valley. Rough-legged hawks winter in Canaan Valley hunting over 

maintained grasslands in the southern end of the valley. Rough-legged hawks 

are typically the most abundant Buteo on the refuge during winter, although 

Christmas Bird Counts have documented occurrences of most others in the 

surrounding area.

Northern harriers, a state species of concern, are a regular migrant during 

spring and fall to the refuge. Records of harriers in June and July in the 

northern portions of the refuge are fairly common; however, no breeding activity 

has been documented and no known breeding records exist for northern harriers 

in the state (Buckelew and Hall 1994). Harriers hunt over the expansive wetland 

habitats in the northern portion of the refuge as well as grassland and wet 

meadows in the southern portion.

Both turkey vultures and black vultures occur on the refuge. Turkey vultures are 

common and have been documented breeding on both Brown Mountain and Cabin 

Mountain in recent years. Black vultures mainly occur in the Blackwater Canyon 

area and are only occasionally seen in the Canaan Valley.

American kestrels occur regularly in the valley, particularly in the southern 

end associated with open grassland habitat. Merlin are occasionally observed on 

refuge lands. Peregrine falcons have been seen in the valley but are considered 

to be accidental. Both Cooper’s hawk and sharp-shinned hawk are relatively 

common and breed on the refuge. Northern goshawk, a state species of concern, 

was documented nesting near Sand Run in 1975. Although no recent nesting 

records exist for this species in the valley, a nest was confirmed on Canaan 

Mountain in 2006. Recent observations of juvenile goshawks in the Freeland 

Run area and Beall Tract have indicated that some refuge habitats are being 

continually used by this rare northern species. Bald eagles regularly use the area 

during winter months and golden eagles are occasionally seen on the refuge.

Nonpasserines

Species in this group are limited to only a few species and include hairy 

woodpecker, downy woodpecker, yellow-shafted flicker, yellow-bellied sapsucker, 

pileated woodpecker, belted kingfisher, and ruby-throated humming bird. All but 

the yellow-bellied sapsucker (a BCR species of concern) are known to nest on the 

refuge.

Landbirds
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-33

Wildlife

Non-passerine species are mostly tied to wooded environments for foraging 

and nesting. All but the ruby-throated hummingbird are cavity nesters. Only 

the belted kingfisher is a wetland species, and it is often found hunting along 

the Blackwater River or one of its many tributaries. Yellow-shafted flickers are 

most common during migration when they are often seen foraging in grasslands, 

woodlots, and edge habitats.

Passerines

There are 88 species of passerines known to occur on the refuge, out of which at 

least 69 have nested. Many of these species are migratory; however Christmas 

Bird Counts have documented at least 35 passerines on the refuge or within the 

count circle. The refuge lies adjacent to a major fall land bird migratory route 

over the Allegheny Front: it serves as the eastern continental divide. The oldest 

continuously operated banding station occurs along the Allegheny Front which 

was established by George Hall and the Brooks Bird Club in 1957. 

The refuge’s diversity of habitats allows a wide variety of species to occur. Unique 

habitats include wetland (open water, palustrine, shrub and forested) and high 

elevation spruce and mixed spruce-hardwood forests. Refuge breeding landbird 

surveys were established to develop a comprehensive list of breeding birds across 

representative habitat types. Since one of the refuge’s unique qualities is the 

extent of wetland habitat, many sampling points fall in and adjacent to wetland 

habitat.

Based on results from breeding bird surveys from 1996 to 2008, the species with 

the highest relative abundance is the common yellowthroat which comprised 

approximately 8% of all landbirds recorded. Red-winged blackbird, redeyed vireo, savannah sparrow, field sparrow, and song sparrow all make up a 

significant portion of the total species abundance on the refuge. 

The refuge provides habitat for an estimated 50 species of mammals. Most are 

considered year-round residents with the exception of migratory bats. The 

most conspicuous mammal is the white-tailed deer which has reached high 

densities in the southern portion of the valley including the refuge. Deer browse 

pressure is heavy in the south end of the valley and likely a limiting factor to the 

regeneration of several plant species, most notably balsam fir. 

Wetland areas support populations of beaver, muskrat, and mink. River otter are 

also found in small stream reaches such as Glade Run but are considered rare 

on the refuge. Research conducted by Francl (2003) on the refuge found nine 

species of small mammals in refuge wetland habitats. Two species documented, 

the southern bog lemming and meadow jumping mouse are state species of 

concern and tracked by the Natural Heritage Program. Except for the southern 

bog lemming, other species documented in this study are considered habitat 

generalists which may reflect the small size of wetlands studied rather than 

depicting true small mammal wetland communities on the refuge (Francl 2003). 

Another state species of concern, the eastern small-footed bat, was documented 

along the Blackwater River in 2006 by refuge staff using acoustical survey 

equipment.

Upland areas support species such as long-tailed weasel, bobcat, striped skunk, 

red fox, grey fox, and black bear. The refuge supports small populations of 

mammals more typical of northern climates such as fisher and snowshoe hare. 

Species of concern include the southern water shrew, southern pygmy shrew, 

long-tailed shrew, meadow jumping mouse, Appalachian cottontail rabbit, 

southern rock vole and the Allegheny woodrat. The Allegheny woodrat has a 

confirmed record in Canaan Valley, but habitat for this species is considered 

Land Mammals
2-34 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Wildlife

limited on the refuge. Historical records indicate that the Appalachian cottontail 

rabbit has been documented in and around Canaan Valley, although no confirmed 

records exist for the refuge.

The West Virginia northern flying squirrel has been successfully trapped and 

monitored at one location on the refuge but is expected to range throughout 

the higher elevations of the Kelly-Elkins Tract. Nest box surveys have found 

nest material consistent with northern flying squirrel occupation in drainages 

from 3,500 feet up to 4,200 feet on Cabin Mountain. One pregnant female was 

documented in a nest box in mixed spruce-hardwood forest adjacent to an old 

road bed in 2003. As an endangered species the West Virginia northern flying 

squirrel was identified as a high priority in the state Wildlife Action Plan 

(WVDNR 2006). The species was also used as an indicator of quality spruce and 

mixed spruce-northern hardwood forest habitat by the USFS in their recent 

Forest Plan (USFS 2006a). Since the squirrel was de-listed the Service is still 

committed to monitoring refuge populations. The species is still considered 

a good indicator of quality spruce and mixed-spruce hardwood forests and 

therefore remains as a focal species for habitat management. The Service 

developed a Red Spruce-Northern Hardwood Ecosystem MOU with multiple 

federal, state, and NGO partners. The vision of the MOU includes specifically 

to “...provide functional habitat to sustain the viability of the West Virginia 

northern flying squirrel...” (USFWS 2007b). As an active partner in the MOU, 

the refuge will still consider the West Virginia northern flying squirrel a focal 

species. 

Ten species of reptiles and 18 species of amphibians are known or likely to occur 

on refuge lands. The most notable of these is the federally threatened Cheat 

Mountain salamander which occurs in high elevation spruce and hardwood 

forests.

Wetland areas provide habitat for pool breeding amphibians such as wood frogs, 

spotted salamanders, and American toads. Many pool breeding sites on the 

refuge are artificially created impoundments or historical ruts in logging roads 

or rail grades. Two species of frog reported in Canaan Valley but without recent 

documentation are American bullfrogs and leopard frogs (Pauley 2002). The 

most ubiquitous species of frog is the northern spring peeper which is found 

throughout the valley in all wetland habitat types. Wetland habitats with moss 

cover often provide habitat for four-toed salamanders, however this species uses 

hardwood forests during the remainder of the year.

Upland habitats such as high elevation spruce forests, mid and 

low-slope northern hardwood forests and old field areas provide 

habitat for most salamander species. Lungless salamanders 

(Plethodontidae) are the dominant amphibians in the refuge’s 

forested habitats. Cheat mountain salamanders are found in small 

pockets of high elevation mixed spruce forest, but red-backed 

salamanders are the most common species in refuge forests. 

Large salamander species in woodland habitats include Wehrle’s 

salamander and northern slimy salamander.

Reptile species are poorly documented in Canaan Valley. Only one 

study indicates an effort to inventory reptile species (Michael 1993) 

and no reptiles were reported from his field investigations. Refuge 

staff observations have confirmed the presence of 9 snakes, with two 

other species likely to occur. The timber rattlesnake may occur in 

higher elevations of the refuge but no observations have been made to document 

its presence within the Canaan Valley watershed.

Reptiles and Amphibians

American toad (Bufo 

americanus)

Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-35

Wildlife

Two turtles have been confirmed on the refuge. The common snapping turtle is 

apparently the most abundant species and is found throughout the refuge, mostly 

associated with beaver ponds and oxbows. The eastern box turtle was originally 

not known from Canaan Valley, but observations of two individuals (a male and 

female) in 2005 and 2006 document its presence in the area.

Only a few studies have been conducted on invertebrates on the refuge. Two 

inventories were conducted by Butler (1981, 1987) on Freeland Run for aquatic 

invertebrates. The inventory was conducted as part of an evaluation of a 

nearby sewage treatment facility. Butler noted a combined total of 22 species 

representing 25 families of invertebrates (Butler 1988). Additionally it was noted 

that over the sampling period, numbers of aquatic invertebrates were reduced 

indicating that Freeland Run had been altered reducing its ability to support a 

full diversity of aquatic life (Butler 1987).

A study of carabid beetles was conducted on the refuge in 1999 by the USFS. A 

total of 98 species were collected during the study. Of this, 23 were new records 

for the state (Davidson and Acciavatti 1999). This study documented 25% of the 

recorded state invertebrate records occurring in Canaan Valley. Freeland Tract 

had the greatest diversity of carabid beetles as well as harboring 10 new state 

records. These were species with more northern distributions and their discovery 

on the Freeland Tract extended their known range distribution further south in 

the eastern United States.

The refuge began a dragonfly and damselfly inventory during the 2005 field 

season. To date a total of 14 species of damselfly and 33 species of dragonfly have 

been collected from refuge tracts. While none of the odonate species collected on 

the refuge are globally rare, at least 13 of the species are listed as state species 

of concern. The diversity of odonates found on the refuge is remarkable and is an 

indicator of wetland health and quality.

There are several invasive pest invertebrate species on the refuge. Balsam wooly 

adelgid has infected most stands of balsam fir on the refuge and surrounding 

areas. This aphid species has been known in Canaan Valley since at least 1993. 

Most trees affected by the adelgid succumb within a few years. Additionally, 

hemlock wooly adelgid has been found at the State Park where it has killed many 

trees in a drainage area adjacent to the ski lodge. This species of adelgid poses a 

significant threat to riparian and forested wetland areas on the refuge.

One mussel species, the squawfoot (Strophitus undulates), has been found on 

the refuge. This species was documented in 2000 in the Blackwater River on the 

Beall Tract. Habitat for mussels may be limited to the areas of the river flowing 

through Middle Ridge where river substrate may be more suitable. No surveys 

have been conducted for the distribution of this species on the refuge or within 

the Blackwater River drainage. Fingernail clam, a freshwater clam species, has 

been found in Freeland beaver pond and several surrounding streams on the 

refuge.

Butterflies and moths have been sporadically surveyed on the refuge and efforts 

are ongoing to further document these species. Monarchs and various swallowtail 

and fritillary species are commonly seen. At least three state species of concern, 

the Atlantis fritillary, the pink-edged sulphur and Harris’s checkerspot have been 

documented on the refuge.

A survey of land mollusks on the refuge began in 2007 as a part of a statewide 

atlas project. While species collection and identification is still ongoing, 82 species 

of land snails have been documented from the refuge, including one species, 

Invertebrates
2-36 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Wildlife

Ventridens arcellus, which had not been collected from Tucker County in over 

thirty years and is a classic high elevation species often associated with limestone 

outcroppings. While the state rank of V. arcellus is currently under review, it is 

probable that the species will be included on the state species of concern list as 

an S1 or S2 species. Two snail species found on the refuge have been identified 

as potentially new to science (Dourson 2009). Two slugs, one native and one 

introduced, and at least two species of aquatic snails have also been documented 

from the refuge during this survey. Land snail abundance and diversity can be 

used as an indicator of forest and soil health.

European starlings occur most commonly at the south end of the refuge in 

grassland and small woodlot habitats. As aggressive cavity nesters, they 

undoubtedly compete with native species such as eastern bluebirds, house wrens 

and tree swallows for available nest sites. Several non-native species of fish 

have been introduced into the Blackwater River and tributaries. Many of these 

introductions have occurred as a result of angler bait releases. As mentioned 

before, both balsam and hemlock wooly adelgid have been documented on the 

refuge.

The refuge provides habitat for one threatened and one endangered species. 

The threatened Cheat Mountain salamander and the endangered Indiana bat 

have both been documented on the refuge. The West Virginia northern flying 

squirrel which occurs in refuge forests was de-listed as an endangered species 

in September 2008. The bald eagle, delisted in August 2007, uses the refuge 

during migration. Both the West Virginia northern flying squirrel and the bald 

eagle, although delisted, remain priority species for Service protection and 

management.

Both the Cheat Mountain salamander and West Virginia northern 

flying squirrel have only been documented on Cabin Mountain in the 

south eastern portion of the refuge. Both species require high elevation 

mixed spruce and hardwood forests. Cheat mountain salamanders 

occur in patchy distributions above 3,800 feet and are likely limited by 

alterations in forest cover through historical fires and logging activities. 

The smallest population of the salamander occurs on Cabin Knob with a 

known occupied habitat of only 0.5 acres. The largest known site on the 

refuge occupies at least 20 acres closer to Bald Knob. 

In 1967, the federal government listed the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) 

as endangered because of declines in their numbers documented at 

their seven major hibernacula in the Midwest (USFWS 2007a). At the 

time of their listing, Indiana bats numbered around 883,300. Surveys 

in 2007 numbered the Indian bat population at 513,000 bats which in a 

9.4% increase over the 2005 estimate and is also the highest estimate 

reported since systematic surveys began in the early 1980s. The 2007 

range-wide population increase is attributed to significant population 

increases in Indiana, New York, Kentucky, and West Virginia (data is 

available from the Service at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/mammals/

inba/). More recent range-wide population estimates are not currently available. 

However, the emergence of White Nose Syndrome in 2007 and associated 

mortality in subsequent years has likely reduced populations of these bats in 

affected areas, including New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. 

With the discovery of White Nose Syndrome in Virginia and West Virginia in 

2009, further mortality is likely to occur. 

Invasive and Exotic 

Wildlife Species

Federally Endangered and 

Threatened Species

Bald eagles

USFWS
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-37

Special Uses

Indiana bats were documented on the refuge for the first time through acoustical 

monitoring conducted by the USFS in 2003 (Ford 2003). Indiana bats were 

found foraging at two locations in the south end of the refuge. The refuge began 

conducting acoustical surveys in 2005. These surveys have documented three 

likely Indiana bat observations in the same location as the 2003 survey during 

2005, 2007, and 2008. Additionally, acoustical surveys documented one new 

location for the species during 2007. Indiana bat calls have been documented from 

the refuge in the months of May, July, August, and September. It is probable 

that these bats were migrating and using the refuge as summer habitat for 

a maternity colony, since no known hibernacula occur within Canaan Valley. 

Because acoustical surveys are not 100% accurate and the Indiana bat has a call 

similar to the more common little brown bat, future surveys will include mist net 

operations to further document the use of the refuge by this endangered species. 

Even though they are delisted, bald eagles are still protected by the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and remain 

a species of management priority for the Service. Bald eagles use the refuge 

primarily from late fall to early spring. Generally bald eagles observed are 

juveniles although adults are seen each year. Up to six bald eagles have been 

observed together on the refuge at one time. Typically eagles are seen singly 

during winter months foraging over the wetland areas in the northern portion of 

the refuge. No known nesting occurs in the vicinity of Canaan Valley.

West Virginia does not have state threatened or endangered species legislation. 

However, the state does maintain a list of tracked wildlife and plant species. 

These are referred to as state species of concern and have been noted in previous 

sections where appropriate. Rare species are assigned ranks by the WVDNR 

Natural Heritage Program and global ranks by NatureServe. 

Canaan Valley has at least 73 documented plants and 69 animal species 

recognized as either federally threatened or endangered, or considered rare and 

ranked as a state species of concern. The number of rare animals documented 

on the refuge is expected to increase with continuing surveys of invertebrate 

species. The complete list of rare species known or expected to occur on the 

refuge is attached as Appendix A.

It is a Service policy to encourage and support research and management 

studies to provide scientific data which will help refuge staff develop appropriate 

management decisions on national wildlife refuges. Priority is granted to 

studies that contribute to the enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and 

management of native wildlife populations and their habitats. All special use 

permits issued for research specify that they be conducted in a manner to cause 

minimal effects on wildlife and habitat. Canaan Valley refuge has consistently 

worked with a variety of university, state, and federal entities on mutually 

beneficial research projects.

State Listed Species

Special Uses

Scientific Research
2-38 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Public Access, Eduation and Recreational Opportunities

This section describes the public access, education and recreation opportunities 

at Canaan Valley refuge. Recreation features and access points on the refuge are 

available from the refuge website at http://www.fws.gov/canaanvalley/CVNWRtrails.htm.

The refuge does not have a visitor use plan. However, we implement many visitor 

opportunities and programs. Additionally, the refuge visitor’s center was recently 

renovated to include new interpretive displays and landscaping to improve the 

visitors’ experience. With the help of volunteers, the refuge has continued to 

improve trails on the refuge including the construction of an Americans With 

Disabilities Act compatible boardwalk on the Freeland Tract. A total of 23 miles 

of trail are maintained for priority public uses and are accessible by pedestrian 

(including cross-country skiing and snowshoeing), bicycling, and horseback. 

During winter months an additional 10 miles of commercially run crosscountry ski trails are open as part of the White Grass Touring Center. Wildlife 

watching trails (including winter ski trails) provide year-round wildlife viewing 

opportunities to thousands of visitors annually. 

The refuge has developed environmental education programs with the help of 

interns from local colleges and universities. Guest speakers are recruited for 

weekend programs. Refuge staff also provides a small number of programs, 

depending on their individual workloads.

The refuge is open daily from one hour before sunrise until one hour after sunset. 

There are four access points for trails: Freeland Road, Cortland Road, Camp 

70 Road and A-frame Road. Visitors may also float through the refuge by small 

watercraft, canoe, or kayak when water levels allow it. Refuge entrance and 

programs are currently all offered free of charge. 

More than 20,000 people per year visit the refuge to participate in a variety of 

wildlife dependent recreational and educational activities. These include wildlife 

observation, photography, interpretation, environmental education, hunting 

and fishing. A 31-mile road and trail system and Visitor Center support these 

activities.

Wildlife observation and photography promote understanding and appreciation 

of natural resources and their management on all lands and waters in the refuge 

system. Per the 605 FW 4 and 5 policies, we strive to follow these guiding 

principles for wildlife observation and photography opportunities at the refuge:

1) Provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible wildlife viewing and photography 

opportunities and facilities;

2) Promote visitor understanding of, and increase visitor appreciation for, 

America’s natural resources;

3) Focus on providing quality recreational and educational opportunities, 

consistent with Service criteria describing quality found in 605 FW 1 Part 1.10; 

and,

4) Minimize confl icts with visitors participating in other compatible wildlifedependent recreation activities.

Public Access, 

Education and 

Recreational 

Opportunities

Public Access

Wildlife-Dependent 

Recreation

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-39

Public Access, Education and Recreational Opportunities

Although the refuge offers quality wildlife observation and photography 

experiences year round, the most popular seasons for this activity are summer 

and winter. The refuge’s location, with its wildlife diversity and mosaic of habitats 

and trail access to those habitats, makes it a popular place for birdwatchers. In 

fact, Canaan Valley refuge is considered by many to be one of the best birding 

areas in West Virginia. The refuge’s trail system currently offers a variety of 

opportunities for visitors interested in short or long trail segments and options 

for trail loops. Volunteers help to maintain the trails through the Adopt a Trail 

program administered by the Friends of the 500th. A boardwalk, constructed 

by the Friends of the 500th and the Youth Conservation Corps (YCC), provides 

access to a viewing platform overlooking a beaver pond and a stand of balsam 

fir for physically disabled visitors. Pedestrian trails are also available for cross 

country skiing. Twenty three miles of the trail system are open for bikes. Twenty 

two miles are open for horse-back riding. Dogs are permitted if kept on the trail 

and on a leash while on the refuge. Dogs may also be used for certain types of 

hunting. Wildlife observation is also conducted by refuge visitors entering the 

refuge by canoe or kayak. A detailed list of the different access points and trails 

on the refuge follows.

Freeland Road Access: Freeland Road provides access to two short pedestrian 

trails (Freeland Trail and Idleman’s Run Trail) and to Forest Road 80 (FR80). 

■ Freeland Trail (0.24 mi): Nice views abound on the Freeland Trail. A short 

universally accessible boardwalk trail leads through a wet field to a spring-fed 

beaver pond. Around the pond, visitors may walk to a stand of balsam fir. 

■ Forest Road 80 (2.0 mi): Forest Road 80 is a maintained gravel road through 

forested habitat, including spruce forest at the summit. It is open for 

pedestrians, bicyclists, horseback riders, and licensed vehicles. It provides 

access from the valley to Dolly Sods Wilderness Area. 

■ Idleman’s Run Trail (0.39 mi): A short pedestrian path runs through forest 

along Idleman’s Run through a northern hardwood forest. Visitors can create 

a loop by walking down Forest Road 80 and returning to the parking area at 

the beginning of Idleman’s Run.

Wildlife photography

Mary Konchar
2-40 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Public Access, Eduation and Recreational Opportunities

Cortland Road Access: This provides access to the Beall (pronounced bell) trails. 

These trails are open for pedestrian use only. A total of 4.5 miles of trail can be 

hiked on Beall. 

■ Beall North Trails (3.2 mi): Beall north trails pass through forest, field and wet 

swale habitats, with a spur to a small bog and another spur to the Blackwater 

River. 

■ Beall South Trails (1.3 mi): Offer visitors good opportunities for viewing and 

hearing grassland birds, before dipping into the forest, down to the Blackwater 

River.

Camp 70 Access: Camp 70 Road (0.8 mi) leads to the Camp 70 Loop Trail, the 

Swinging Bridge Trail and the Brown Mountain Trails. The 0.8 mile section 

of Camp 70 Road is currently a state road which has been unmaintained for 

many years. This section of road traverses the refuge and provides access to the 

Camp 70 Loop Trail.

■ The Camp 70 Loop Trail (0.8 mi): This trail travels east from the Camp 70 

parking area. This extension of the state road is open for pedestrian, horse, 

bicycle and vehicle use, until the loop at the end, which is closed to vehicles. 

Traveling this trail, visitors start in the woods, and gradually the valley opens 

up before them. At the ending loop there are excellent views of the valleys, 

wetlands and close-up views of beaver ponds. 

■ The Swinging Bridge Trail (1.1 mi): This trail crosses the Blackwater River 

and provides access to refuge land on Canaan Mountain and connects to 

Canaan Valley Institute land which is also open for recreational use. This trail 

is open for pedestrian and bicycle access.

■ The Brown Mountain Trail (2.4 mi): This trail is open to pedestrian, horse, and 

bicycle use. It is a pleasant trail through forest land, with a gently increasing 

grade. It leads to the Brown Mountain Overlook Trail (1.96 mi), a loop which 

provides a beautiful overlook of the refuge’s wetlands. The Brown Mountain 

Overlook Trail is open for pedestrians only. 

A-Frame Road Access: The rest of the refuge trails are accessible from A-frame 

Road. 

■ A-frame Road (4.8 mi in the refuge): This is a public access route open for 

pedestrian, horse, bicycle and vehicle use. From route 93 to the parking lot at 

the end of the gravel A-frame Road is nine miles, 4.8 miles through the refuge 

and 4.2 miles through private land. For most of its length the road passes 

through the forested slopes of Cabin Mountain. In a few places, there are nice 

“overlook” views of the refuge. The primary parking area is near the beaver 

ponds along Glade Run. Parking is also permitted on the side of the road, 

wherever it does not impede traffic.

■ The Valley Overlook Trail (0.06 mi): This is a short steep climb from A-frame 

Road, shortly after the road enters the refuge, to a clearing on the slope of the 

northeastern side of the refuge. On a clear day, visitors experience a beautiful 

view of the entire valley from this spot. The refuge currently wants to re-route 

the trail to reduce its gradient, making it accessible for more visitors. This trail 

is open to pedestrians.
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-41

Public Access, Education and Recreational Opportunities

■ The Cabin Mountain Trail (2.0 mi): This trail begins at the A-frame Road 

parking area. It also provides access to Sand Run Trail. It is open for 

pedestrian, horse and bicycle use. It begins with views of the Glade Run beaver 

ponds, then travels through forest habitat. Excellent views of the refuge and 

the entire Canaan Valley can be seen from the summit of this trail. This trail is 

open to pedestrian, horse, and bicycle use. A variety of forest birds and wildlife 

can be encountered on this trail. 

■ Cabin Mountain Spur (0.7 mi): This trail begins at the parking lot at the end 

of A-Frame Road. It travels through forested habitats to overlooks on Cabin 

Mountain. The overlook on Cabin Mountain Spur is on private land, after 

leaving refuge land. Visitors should have the permission of the landowner 

before traveling there. This trail is open to pedestrian, horse, and bicycle use.

■ Sand Run Trail (0.94 mi): Sand Run Trail starts off of Cabin Mountain Trail. 

The trail goes through forested habitat down to the valley floor, travels 

through wetlands, crosses a stream and rises to meet Middle Valley Trail. This 

trail is open to pedestrian use only.

■ South Glade Run Crossing (0.9 mi): This trail starts shortly after Cabin 

Mountain Trail starts its gradual climb. This trail is similar to Sand Run trail 

in that it goes through forested habitat, wetlands, and crosses Glade Run, then 

rises to meet Middle Valley Trail. This trail is open to bicycle, horseback, and 

pedestrian use.

■ Middle Valley Trail (6.2 mi): The south end of Middle Valley Trail meets the 

border of Timberline residential community. The north end of the trail turns 

east, crosses Glade Run, then travels uphill to A-frame Road. Middle Valley 

Trail provides an opportunity to experience the refuge’s wetlands, grasslands, 

and forests. Alder thickets, which attract a variety of unique plant and animal 

species, can be viewed on the northern portion of the trail. This trail is open to 

pedestrian, horse, and bicycle use. 

■ Blackwater View Trail (1.4 mi): The Blackwater View Trail begins near where 

the Middle Ridge Trail borders the Timberline residential community. It then 

travels down the slope of Middle Ridge to the Blackwater River. This trail is 

open to pedestrian, bicycle, and horseback use.

The refuge’s interpretive mission is: By interpreting the biological treasures 

entrusted to the refuge’s care, visitors will understand what we do and be 

motivated to play an active role in environmental concerns here and at home.

A new visitor center was opened to the public in summer 2001. The visitor center 

has an interpretive exhibit room with displays that focus on the Canaan Valley, 

the Service and the Refuge System. A 20-person audio/visual room, with full 

audiovisual capacity, is used for the Refuge Orientation Video, special events, 

lectures, and training sessions. New exhibits were installed in 2006, and a native 

plant garden was installed for outdoor interpretation in 2007. In fiscal year 2008, 

the visitor center was open 234 days, serving 5,778 visitors.

The visitor center is open Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 8:30 am to 

3:00 pm, and on Saturday from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm, as staff and volunteers are 

available. During the peak summer season the visitor center is generally open 

seven days a week, depending on the availability of interns and volunteers. When 

available, trained refuge volunteers staff the information desk, answer questions, 

Interpretation
2-42 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Public Access, Eduation and Recreational Opportunities

hand out brochures, and sell items from the cooperating association sales outlet. 

The Friends of the 500th, a non-profit support group, operates the sales outlet 

and helps support refuge projects and programs. 

Refuge staff and volunteers conduct special events throughout the year to help 

people learn more about, and contribute to management of the refuge’s fish and 

wildlife resources. Offsite events include booths at the Mountain State Forest 

Festival, Hooked on Fishing Not on Drugs (HOFNOD) Expo, and the Tucker 

County fishing derby. Onsite special events include Woodcock Round-up for 

Earth Day, Migration Bird Count for International Migratory Bird Day, Wild 

School day for children, and the Valley Vibes Program, a monthly program 

for families on the local area’s natural history. The refuge also hosts a variety 

of volunteer work days for fence removal, tree planting, and a Christmas Bird 

Count. In 2008, volunteers contributed 702 hours to these special events.

Interpretive tours are given to help visitors learn more about the refuge’s fish 

and wildlife resources. The refuge also partners with White Grass to provide 

environmental education and interpretive tours during the winter months. Tours 

and programs are led by staff, volunteers, or researchers on the refuge. In Fiscal 

Year 2008, 55 on-site interpretive programs served 822 visitors. This includes 

35 interpretive walks on the refuge, with 408 people attending, and 20 indoor 

interpretive programs, with 414 participants attending.

A compatibility determination was completed and approved in 2003 for fishing on 

the refuge. Current numbers of anglers using the refuge is estimated at 550 per 

year. The most popular locations for fishing access include the Blackwater River 

(along Timberline Road and Rt. 32) and beaver ponds in the north end of the 

valley.

Anglers must have a valid state license to fish on the refuge. Anglers can access 

rivers, streams, or ponds wherever a road or trail intersects these waterways. 

Most anglers fish for trout. Fishing activity is highest after the state stocks 

rivers and streams.

The refuge first opened for hunting in 1996. The most recent Hunt Plan and 

Environmental Assessment were revised in 2007. The refuge prepares annual 

hunt programs, seeks state review, and makes revisions to the refuge hunt 

program when necessary. For example, in 2002 the refuge began requiring 

hunters to obtain refuge hunting permits on an annual basis. The hunt 

program is managed to meet refuge priority public use goals, and manage deer 

populations.

Approximately 98% of the refuge is currently open to hunting, with most seasons 

following the state seasons. Areas closed to hunting follow the original 1996 hunt 

plan and most tracts in the southern portion of the refuge are closed to rifle 

hunting due to community safety concerns. 

Hunting

Fishing
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-43

Public Access, Education and Recreational Opportunities

The following are guiding principles of the hunting program, according to new 

Fish and Wildlife policy (605 FW 2): 

1) Manage wildlife populations consistent with Refuge System-specifi c 

management plans approved after 1997 and, to the extent practicable, state fi sh 

and wildlife conservation plans; 

2) Promote visitor understanding of and increase visitor appreciation for America’s 

natural resources; 

3) Provide opportunities for quality recreational and educational experiences; 

4) Encourage participation in this tradition; and 

5) Minimize confl icts with visitors participating in other compatible wildlifedependent recreational activities. 

Hunting is permitted in accordance with state seasons and regulations, federal 

laws, and refuge-specific regulations. Except for spring turkey season, the refuge 

is closed to hunting from March 1 to August 31. The refuge began issuing formal 

hunting permits during the 2002 season after the acquisition of the Main Tract. 

An annual average of 1,819 refuge hunt permits has been issued since the 2002 

season. In fiscal year 2007, hunters spent an estimated 690 hunter-days on the 

refuge. 

The following game species are taken on refuge lands during applicable seasons: 

white-tailed deer, black bear, wild turkey, ruffed grouse, mourning dove, 

waterfowl, coot, rail, gallinule, snipe, woodcock, rabbit, hare, squirrel, red fox, 

gray fox, raccoon, bobcat, woodchuck, coyote, opossum, and striped skunk. All 

other species of wildlife are protected. Hunters must carry a valid state hunting 

license, refuge hunt permit and a photo ID to hunt on the refuge. 

Dog training and field trials are not permitted on the refuge. However, pursuit 

dogs are permitted for raccoon and black bear hunting seasons, according to 

state and refuge specific regulations.

The refuge maintains a small environmental education program. Teachers and 

youth group leaders may make reservations to bring classes to the refuge for 

environmental field trips. Staff or volunteers assist with school field trips as time 

and schedules permit. Teachers may also lead their own field trip, tying in field 

activities to what the students are learning back in the classroom. The Friends of 

the 500th help schools pay for buses for student field trips to the refuge.

The refuge environmental education programs reach many area school children. 

In 2008, 345 students attended on-site programs and 153 students attended offsite programs. 

The refuge partners with a local group, Tucker County Connections that hosts 

a three-day camp for County’s fifth grade students. The goal of the camp is to 

connect local students with their environment through interactive educational 

programs related to local culture, human and natural history. The refuge hosts a 

field trip for the fifth graders as part of their three day camp. Refuge staff also 

helps with other activities as schedules permit.

Environmental Education
2-44 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Cultural Resources

The refuge provides environmental education programs for the 

local Girl Scout day camp, located at Blackwater Falls State Park. 

Each year, the Girl Scouts focus on two badges related to nature 

and outdoors that they work on during the three days of camp. Staff 

works with the park naturalist to plan and present activities for 

the Girl Scouts to meet the badge requirements related to natural 

history and the environment.

The refuge also presents a one day program called Wild School Day 

to educate the County’s sixth grade students about fish and wildlife. 

Ten to twelve stations teach students about fishing skills, aquatic 

habitats, boating, raptors, snakes, aquatic invertebrates, and more. 

The whole refuge staff gets involved, as do staff from the WVDNR, 

the USFS (Monongahela National Forest), Canaan Valley Institute, 

and refuge volunteers. 

Teachers and youth leaders may borrow curriculum materials 

from the refuge library to help them prepare lessons about the 

environment both at school and on field trips. Currently the 

Friends of the 500th are working to catalog library materials. Once 

cataloged, the Friends will advertise the availability of materials in 

the library.

Service archaeologists in the regional office review construction projects and 

changes to buildings on the refuge for potential to affect archeological sites and 

historical structures. Additionally, the refuge is required to notify the State 

Historic Preservation Office prior to any construction activities. The information 

on historic and prehistoric cultural resources in Canaan Valley and on the refuge 

is limited. In preparation for the CCP, the Service has prepared both historic 

period and pre-contact period cultural resource overviews for the refuge. 

These include pre-contact period archaeological sensitivity maps and a field 

reconnaissance by the Tucker County Highlands History and Education Project 

that yielded historic archaeology site inventory forms, locations, and descriptions 

for historic period resources on the refuge. 

Archaeological Resources

Four archaeological surveys have been conducted on lands the refuge now owns. 

Two of these were field surveys in areas once proposed for construction projects. 

In 1995, Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. conducted a survey involving field 

testing for a planned resort expansion now included in refuge ownership. This 

survey identified the historic Freeland farmstead buildings, including the house, 

springhouse, storehouse, and privy. Census records showed that in 1880, James 

Freeland, who came to Canaan Valley in 1872 as one of the first settlers, with 

Isaac and Manerva Freeling (sic.) lived in the house with Isaac and Manerva’s 

two daughters. A third child died in 1889. The resources from the surveys are 

currently being managed by the West Virginia Division of Cultural History.

In 2002, Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Research located the only known 

prehistoric archaeological site on the refuge. This prehistoric site yielded sparse 

chert flakes and a biface fragment in shovel pits. These results were interpreted 

as showing evidence of an ephemeral camp or resting spot as people hunted or 

sought other resources. Chert, a lithic resource used for stone tools at the site, 

can occur in limestone deposits, but is not known to outcrop in the Canaan Valley. 

The Service altered the location of the proposed building project to an area which 

contained no archaeological site. 

A third small project-oriented survey by Service staff revealed no sites during 

subsurface testing, but produced information about grave sites and historic 

structure foundations on the refuge. 

Cultural Resources

First grade field trip, Freeland Tract

Marquette Crockett/USFWS
Chapter 2. Affected Environment 2-45

Cultural Resources

In addition to these archaeological field surveys, a prehistoric archaeology 

overview was contracted to Michael Baker Jr., Inc. in 2007. The reconnaissance 

overview study, “Prehistoric Archaeological Background Study for a 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, 

Tucker and Grant Counties, West Virginia,” included no field work. The report 

contains palaeoenvironmental information about the refuge and develops a model 

of prehistoric site location. Using variables such as slope, historic disturbance 

and distance to water, a map of high and medium potential sites for prehistoric 

resources was created. However, the report notes that due to the extensive 

timbering, farming and fire history of Canaan Valley, many sites on the valley 

floor may be heavily disturbed. The greatest potential for preserved prehistoric 

sites may be under the relatively recently formed peat deposits. These sites would 

not be found through shovel test pits. 

A corresponding overview of historic settlement and development has been 

produced for the CCP by a committee of the Friends of the 500th, the Tucker 

County Highlands History and Education Project (TCHHEP). This overview 

summarized the early settlement and development of Canaan Valley by 

European Americans and included a field component. The work of TCCHEP 

identified 76 sites on or near refuge land which were considered potential historic 

archaeological sites. A subset of these sites was investigated in detail, and all 

were recorded and identified in a report submitted to the refuge in 2007. One 

example of the work documented in the report is a grave site located in a wooded 

section of the Main Tract. Investigations by the TCHHEP found that the general 

location was the home site of George W. Leatherman. According to TCHHEP, 

Leatherman was a very early settler of Canaan Valley purchasing land totaling 

over 2,300 acres in 1875. The grave includes a head and footstone formed from 

sandstone slabs. The headstone indicates the burial of G.S.L. in 1880 and could 

be the oldest grave in Canaan Valley. This document will prove invaluable for 

avoiding negative impacts to historic resources during habitat management and 

visitor services development at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. 

Vernal pool on Beall Tract

Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 1 Chapter 3

Alternatives Considered, Including the 

Service-Preferred Alternative

Hermit Thrush

Ken Sturm/USFWS

■ Introduction

■ Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

■ Alternative A. Current Management

■ Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Species 

Focus)

■ Alternative C. Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public Uses

■ Alternative D. Focus on Managing Historical Habitats
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-1

Introduction

Refuge goals and objectives define each of the management alternatives 

identified below. As we described in chapter 1, developing refuge goals was one of 

the first steps in our planning process. Goals are intentionally broad, descriptive 

statements of the desired future condition for refuge resources. By design, 

they are less quantitative, and more prescriptive, in defining the targets of our 

management. They also articulate the principal elements of refuge purposes and 

our vision statement and provide a foundation for developing specific management 

objectives and strategies. Our goals are common to all the alternatives.

The next step was to consider a range of possible management objectives 

that would help us meet those goals. Objectives are essentially incremental 

steps toward achieving a goal; they also further define the management 

targets in measurable terms. They typically vary among the alternatives and 

provide the basis for determining more detailed strategies, monitoring refuge 

accomplishments, and evaluating our success. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) guidance in “Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A 

Handbook” (USFWS 2004a) recommends that objectives possess five properties 

to be “SMART”: (1) specific; (2) measurable; (3) achievable; (4) results-oriented; 

and (5) time-fixed.

A rationale accompanies each objective to explain its context and why we think 

it is important. We will use the objectives in the alternative selected for the final 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) in writing refuge step-down plans. We 

will measure our successes by how well we achieve those objectives.

We next identified strategies for each of the objectives. These are specific actions, 

tools, techniques, or a combination of those that we may use to achieve the 

objective. The list of strategies under each objective represent the potential suite 

of actions to be implemented, and by design, most will be further evaluated as to 

how, when, and where they should be implemented in refuge step-down plans. 

After identifying a wide range of possible management objectives and strategies 

that could achieve the goals, we began the process of crafting management 

alternatives. Simply put, alternatives are packages of complementary objectives 

and strategies designed to meet refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, 

and goals, while responding to the issues and opportunities identified during the 

planning process. 

To this end, we grouped objectives that seemed to fit together in what we loosely 

called “alternative themes.” For example, we considered such themes as “current 

management,” “focal species management,” “focus on priority public uses,” and 

“historic processes management.” These were firmed up into four management 

alternatives after further evaluating how respective objectives would interact, 

their compatibility with refuge purposes, and the reality of accomplishing the 

objectives in a reasonable time frame. 

We fully analyze in this draft CCP/Environmental Assessment (EA) four 

alternatives which characterize different ways of managing the refuge over 

the next 15 years. We believe they represent a reasonable range of alternative 

proposals for achieving the refuge purpose, vision and goals, and addressing 

the issues described in chapter 1. Unless otherwise noted, all actions would be 

implemented by refuge staff. 

Alternative A satisfies the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

requirement of a “no action” alternative, which we define as “continuing current 

management.” It describes our existing management priorities and activities, and 

serves as a baseline for comparing and contrasting alternatives B, C and D. 

Introduction
3-2 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Introduction

Alternative B, the Service-preferred alternative, combines the actions we believe 

would most effectively achieve refuge purposes, vision, and goals, and respond to 

public issues. It emphasizes management of specific refuge habitats to support 

focal species whose habitat needs benefit other species of conservation concern. 

In particular, we emphasize habitat for priority bird species of conservation 

concern identified for Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 28 as well as plant species 

and communities for which the valley provides significant habitat and protection. 

We also consulted the West Virginia Wildlife Conservation Action Plan (WVCAP) 

and the United States Forest Service (USFS) Land and Resource Management 

Plan to help identify state and regional species and communities of conservation 

concern. Additionally, it addresses the refuge system’s mandate to consider 

managing refuge habitat under the Biological Integrity and Diversity policy 

(2001). In alternative B, we also propose to expand trail connections on the refuge 

and work with partners to promote a region-wide system of trails. 

Alternative C puts most management emphasis on the focal species which 

respond to early successional habitat management. Differences between 

alternatives are more distinct within the public use goals and objectives, such 

as locations of proposed wildlife observation trails. Although the Biological 

Integrity and Diversity policy would still guide some management of the forested 

and unique wetland plant communities, this management would mostly be in the 

form of protection and conservation rather than restoration to actively encourage 

historical plant communities and processes. 

Alternative D emphasizes management to restore where, practical, the 

distribution of natural communities in the Canaan Valley that would have 

resulted from natural processes without the influence or intervention of human 

settlement and management. This alternative would be following more strictly 

the Biological Integrity and Diversity policy to guide management while 

satisfying only some of the BCR 28 priority bird and other focal species habitat 

requirements. 

We also developed a habitat management map, a public use map, and a hunt 

map for each alternative (although some alternatives share maps when there 

are no changes between alternatives). Using Geographic Information Systems 

(GIS) mapping tools and data sets, the habitat maps are intended to help readers 

visualize where the refuge would likely conduct habitat management strategies 

on the ground in each alternative. The habitat management maps are not meant 

to identify exact locations for implementing a particular strategy on the ground. 

Explanation of habitat management strategies are detailed further in the 

objectives section of each alternative. It will be up to our refuge staff to decide 

during the implementation phase what specific strategy applies to a particular 

site, at what level or timing it should apply, and exactly where it applies on a 

given site. These actions will be detailed in the annual Habitat Management Plan 

(see “Refuge Step-Down Plans” below) and annual work plans.

The public use maps are intended to show the reader where the refuge would add 

new infrastructure for visitors, such as new trails and new observation platforms. 

Exactly where the new trails and other infrastructure are to be built will be 

decided during the implementation stage, with the help of engineers and other 

professionals. The hunt maps illustrate which areas of the refuge are open to 

hunting in each alternative. 
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-3

Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

All of the alternatives share some common actions. Some are required by law 

or policy, or represent NEPA decisions that recently have gone through public 

review, and agency review and approval. Or, they may be administrative actions 

that do not necessarily require public review, but we want to highlight them 

in this public document. They may also be actions we believe are critical to 

achieving the refuge’s purpose, vision, and goals.

Service planning policy identifies 25 step-down plans that may be applicable on 

any given refuge. We have identified the six plans below as the most relevant 

to this planning process, and we have prioritized them. Sections of the refuge 

Habitat Management Plan (HMP) which require public review are presented 

within this document and will be incorporated into the final version of the 

HMP immediately upon CCP approval. We will also develop an annual HMP 

and Habitat and Species Inventory and Monitoring Plan as the highest priority 

step-down plans, regardless of alternative selected for implementation. These 

are described in more detail below. They will be modified and updated as new 

information is obtained so we can continue to keep them relevant. Completion of 

these plans supports all five refuge goals. 

All of the alternatives schedule the completion of these step-down management 

plans as shown.

■ A Habitat Management Plan (HMP), immediately following CCP approval (see 

discussion immediately below).

■ An Annual Habitat Management Plan (AHMP), within 1 year of CCP approval 

(see discussion below).

■ A Habitat and Species Inventory and Monitoring Plan (HSIMP), within 2 years 

of CCP approval (see discussion below).

■ A Visitor Services Plan, within 3 years of CCP approval. 

■ A Law Enforcement Plan, within 3 years of CCP approval.

■ Facilities and Sign Plan, within 3 years of CCP approval.

A HMP for the refuge is the requisite first step to achieving the objectives 

of goals 1–4, regardless of the alternative selected for implementation. For 

example, the HMP will incorporate the selected alternative’s habitat objectives 

developed herein, and will also identify “what, where, how, and when” actions 

and strategies will be implemented over the 15 year time frame to achieve 

those objectives. Specifically, the HMP will define management areas, define 

treatment units, identify type or method of treatment, establish the timing for 

management actions, and define how we will measure success over the next 

15 years. In this CCP, the goals, objectives, and list of strategies under each 

objective identify how we intend to manage habitats on the refuge. Both the CCP 

and HMP are based on current resource information, published research, and 

our own field experiences. Our methods, timing, and techniques will be updated 

as new, credible information becomes available. To facilitate our management, 

we will regularly maintain our GIS database, documenting any major vegetation 

changes on at least a 5 year basis. As appropriate, actions listed below in “Actions 

Common to All Alternatives” will be incorporated into the HMP. 

Actions Common to 

All of the Alternatives

Developing Refuge Stepdown Plans

Habitat Management Plan 

(HMP)
3-4 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

The AHMP and HSIMP for the refuge are also priorities for completion soon 

after CCP approval. Regardless of the alternative chosen, these plans are also 

vital for implementing habitat management actions and measuring our success in 

meeting the objectives. The AHMP is generated each year from the HMP, and 

will outline specific management activities to occur in that year. The HSIMP will 

outline the methodology to assess whether our original assumptions and proposed 

management actions are, in fact, supporting our habitat and species objectives. 

Inventory and monitoring needs will be prioritized in the HSIMP. The results of 

inventories and monitoring will provide us with more information on the status 

of our natural resources and allow us to make more informed management 

decisions.

It is important to recognize that additional staffing and funding will be necessary 

to implement the proposed objectives and strategies in this CCP. In appendixes 

F and G we identify the different levels of funding and staffing needs based on 

each alternative. However, our budgets are determined annually by Congress 

and distributed through our Washington and Regional offices before arriving 

at field stations. Therefore, the refuge does not have total control over its 

annual allocation of resources. Below we describe activities related to staffing, 

administration, and operations that are shared among the alternatives; some are 

new, others are on-going. Implementing these activities supports all our refuge 

goals.

Operational Budgets and Permanent Staffing

Under all alternatives, our objective is to sustain annual funding and staffing 

levels that allow us to achieve our refuge purposes, as interpreted by the 

goals, objectives, and strategies. Many of our most visible projects since refuge 

establishment were achieved through special project funds that typically have a 1- 

to 2-year duration. While these funds are very important to us, they are limited 

in their flexibility since they typically can not be used for any other priority 

project that may arise. As previously mentioned, funding for land acquisition is 

derived primarily from two sources – the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

and the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. Funds from these sources are 

generally directed at specific acquisitions.

A Regional Plan was developed in FY 2007 to implement a new approach to 

budgeting. The goal of base budgeting was to have a maximum of 75% of a refuge 

station’s budget cover salaries and fixed costs, while the remaining 25% or more 

would be operations dollars. The intent of this strategy was to improve the refuge 

manager’s capability to do the highest priority project work and not have the vast 

majority of a refuge’s budget tied up in inflexible, fixed costs. 

Chapter 1 describes the requirements for appropriateness and compatibility 

determinations. Appendix B includes draft appropriateness and compatibility 

determinations to support the activities in alternative B, the Service-preferred 

alternative. Our final CCP will include the approved compatibility determinations 

for the alternative selected. We will only allow activities determined compatible 

that meet or facilitate refuge purposes, goals, and objectives (603 FW 2) (2000). 

When the Service acquires land within the current acquisition boundary in full, 

fee-simple ownership, we would consider public access and compatible public 

recreation, and other refuge uses, consistent with what we currently allow, or 

propose to allow, on the existing refuge lands. Each acquisition is reviewed for 

compatible priority public uses which may get incorporated into the management 

of that parcel. When a conservation easement, or a partial interest, is purchased, 

the Service’s objective is to obtain all rights determined necessary to ensure 

protection of federal trust resources on that parcel. Typically, at a minimum, the 

Annual Habitat 

Management Plan and 

Habitat and Species 

Inventory and Monitoring 

Plan (AHMP, HSIMP)

Refuge Staffing and 

Administration

Appropriateness 

and Compatibility 

Determinations
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-5

Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

purchase would include development rights. However, we may also seek to obtain 

the rights to manage habitats, and/or to manage public use and access, if the 

seller is willing and we have funding available.

With the assistance of the Service’s Regional Visitors Services Review Team, 

two public use program emphases have been determined for this refuge: wildlife 

observation and hunting. This determination was based on careful consideration 

of our natural resources, existing staff, operational funds, existing and potential 

facilities, and which programs we would be most effective in providing “quality” 

opportunities for visitors. The community survey we conducted with assistance 

from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 2007 (Sexton, N.R., et. al., 2009) 

indicates that self-guided interpretation and wildlife observation, and hunting 

are highly desired in the area. While all of the priority public uses are important, 

wildlife observation and hunting will receive greater emphasis as the refuge 

prioritizes resources for visitor services in this draft CCP/EA. As always, we 

look to our partners, friends, and/or other volunteers to help develop and assist 

with the refuge’s public use programs. 

The refuge is open from one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset, seven 

days a week, to ensure visitor safety and protect refuge resources. However, 

the refuge manager has the authority to issue a special use permit to allow 

others access outside these timeframes. For example, research personnel may 

be permitted access at different times if necessary for successful completion of a 

research project.

All commercial and economic uses will adhere to 50 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), Subpart A, §29.1 and Service policy which allow these activities if they 

contribute to the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) mission, or 

refuge purposes and goals. Allowing these activities also requires the Service 

to determine appropriateness and prepare a compatibility determination and 

an annual special use permit outlining terms, conditions, fees, and any other 

stipulations to ensure compatibility.

Wildlife-Dependent 

Recreational Program

Refuge Operating Hours

Commercial and Economic 

Uses

Wildlife photography

Mary Konchar
3-6 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

While purchasing land to complete the refuge boundary the Service has acquired 

land with reserved rights, rights-of-way, leases and other agreements. Currently 

there are over 37 reserved rights listed in realty files for land owned by the 

refuge. Most include rights for mineral extraction (oil and gas predominately) and 

rights to run power and gas lines across refuge lands to serve commercial and 

residential interests. The refuge will follow policy guidance when any of these 

reserved rights are exercised. Specifically we follow 50 CFR 29.21-9, ensure 

compliance under the refuge compatibility policy (603 FW 2) and biological 

integrity, diversity and environmental health policy (601 FW 3). Depending on 

the location and the extent of disturbance required to exercise reserved rights 

on refuge lands, other laws may apply. In general, the refuge will coordinate 

with all private parties exercising their rights to ensure the protection of refuge 

resources. The refuge will issue special use permits as necessary to manage 

these uses and to ensure that impacts to refuge resources are as minimal as 

possible. 

As we describe in chapter 2, we pay annual refuge revenue sharing payments to 

counties based on the acreage and the appraised value of refuge lands in their 

jurisdiction: Tucker and Grant counties. These annual payments are calculated 

by a formula determined by Congress, which also appropriates funding. All 

of the alternatives will continue those payments in accordance with the law, 

commensurate with changes in the appraised market value of refuge lands, or 

new appropriation levels dictated by Congress.

Knowing that public lands cannot survive without a constituency that supports 

them, the refuge will continue to build relationships that effect sound stewardship 

through partnerships developed in the communities we serve. We will continue 

to work within community forums such as the Tucker County Chamber of 

Commerce and town meetings, Rotary and other venues. Refuge staff will 

maintain an ongoing dialogue with our congressional delegation, the state of West 

Virginia, the Tucker County Commission, local elected officials, the business 

community and refuge neighbors. We will foster a spirit of cooperation with all of 

our stakeholders and be transparent in our management of lands entrusted to us 

by the American people. 

As a federal land management agency, we are entrusted with protecting historic 

structures and archaeological sites on our land which are eligible for, or listed on, 

the National Register of Historic Places. Service archaeologists in the regional 

office keep an inventory of known sites and structures and ensure that we 

consider them in planning new ground disturbing or structure altering changes 

to the refuge. They consult with the West Virginia Division of Culture and 

History (West Virginia’s State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)) concerning 

projects which might affect sites and structures, and conduct archaeological or 

architectural surveys when needed. Projects can usually be redesigned to avoid 

affecting National Register eligible sites or structures. 

Under all alternatives, we will conduct an evaluation on the potential to impact 

archeological and historical resources as required, and will consult with the 

respective SHPO. We will be especially thorough in areas along the rivers and 

streams where there is a higher probability of locating a site. These activities 

will ensure we comply with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act, regardless of the alternative. That compliance may require any or all of the 

following: a State Historic Preservation Records survey, literature survey, or 

field survey.

Reserved Rights

Distributing Refuge Revenue 

Sharing Payments

Community Relations

Cultural Resources
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-7

Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

Currently, the refuge comprises 28 tracts and protects 16,183 acres of wildlife 

habitat and wetland communities. Under all alternatives we would continue to 

pursue acquisition from willing sellers of the 8,932 acres of land that remains 

privately owned in the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary, potentially 

expanding the refuge’s total acreage to approximately 25,000 acres. The 

remaining lands to be acquired include wetlands, riparian areas, grasslands, and 

upland forested habitats that provide important resting, nesting, and feeding 

locations for a host of migratory birds (waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, 

raptors, and songbirds) and threatened and endangered species. They also 

contain wetlands and rare plant communities. Upland communities also provide 

critical connections to protect and maintain the integrity of wetland habitat, one 

of the primary objectives in the establishment of the refuge. 

Our preference would be to acquire new lands in fee simple since that method 

ensures full management control and flexibility. However, the method of 

acquisition will also take into consideration the needs and desires of the present 

landowner. As we acquire these lands, we will manage them by the goals, 

objectives, and strategies under the approved alternative. 

As land is evaluated for acquisition by the Service, the habitat types, habitat 

connectivity, related wildlife populations and plant community values are taken 

into consideration. Once acquired, management activities planned for new 

property are considered relative to the amount of particular habitat types the 

property contains as well as the spatial relationship between habitat types on the 

property relative to habitat types on adjacent refuge land and other protected 

lands. These relationships help determine the types of potential management 

activities which the Service may apply to the new land acquisition. For example, 

new land acquisitions which contain pasture or other grassland habitat may be 

considered for continued grassland management for grassland obligate bird 

species if there are at least 50 acres of grassland within the newly acquired 

property or it is contiguous with existing refuge lands currently under grassland 

management. Lands which contain wetland habitat would be protected and 

management may include improving the buffering capacity of adjacent uplands 

by increasing riparian corridors if necessary and conducting restoration actions 

to prevent erosion or habitat fragmentation. Land which contains edge hardwood 

forested communities and aspen stands may be considered for successional forest 

management to provide young dense vegetation for priority early successional 

bird species. Conversely, forested habitat which is contiguous with stands of 

forest on existing refuge lands may be protected and restoration applied to 

improve forest interior breeding bird habitat or maintain movement corridors 

between the refuge and other protected lands in the watershed.

Any management activities considered will relate directly to priority migratory 

birds, threatened and endangered species protection and to the other purposes 

for which the refuge was established.

All alternatives would maintain the annual Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) 

program which has generally consisted of a crew of four to five persons (15-

18 years old), and a crew leader. This has been a popular program in the local 

community because local youth employment opportunities are limited. The crew 

accomplishes many important tasks in support of our visitor services programs, 

biological programs, and maintenance needs.

Land Acquisition

Youth Conservation Corps
3-8 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

The Canaan Valley was designated a National Natural Landmark (NNL) in 1974, 

a program managed by the National Park Service (Park Service). The NNL is 

currently 24,763 acres of which 16,054 are within the refuge. The purpose for 

the designation was to protect the relict boreal ecosystem, the high diversity of 

habitats, large areas of wetlands and opportunities for outdoor education and 

recreation in the valley. All alternatives will uphold the founding purposes for 

the establishment of the NNL and the refuge will work with the Park Service 

to further the purposes of the NNL in keeping with the purposes of the refuge 

and the mission of the Service. For more information on the National Natural 

Landmark Program, please visit http://www.nature.nps.gov/nnl.

The Refuge System has identified management to control the establishment and 

spread of invasive plants as a national priority. Fortunately, on this refuge, the 

threat is currently low. However, our objective is to ensure no new plant species 

become well established, and we will mange to control the spread of what does 

exist. To the extent possible, we will physically remove invasive species where 

they are encountered. We propose to use approved herbicides when determined 

by the refuge manager to be necessary to control invasive plants, after regional 

office review and approval. Of particular concern on the refuge are existing 

stands of multiflora rose, yellow iris, Japanese stilt grass, and garlic mustard. 

Other species such as purple loosestrife and Japanese knotweed are found nearby 

but have not yet been documented on refuge property.

In conjunction with the HMP and HSIMP, we will develop a list of species of 

greatest concern on the refuge, identify priority areas with which to be vigilant, 

and establish monitoring and treatment strategies. Refer to the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Invasive Species Management Strategy released in May 2003 

(USFWS 2003) for additional tools, processes, and strategies. The 2003 report 

is complimented by a technical report issued in May 2004 by USGS and others, 

titled: The Invasive Species Survey: A Report on the Invasion of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (Simonson et al. 2004). These reports together give 

both a status review and a management strategy for combating invasive species. 

In addition, we will stay abreast of Service policy revisions currently being 

reworked to facilitate implementation. Other strategies will include:

■ Institute proper care of all refuge equipment to avoid introduction or transport 

of invasive plants; 

■ Require researchers on the refuge to take steps to prevent transportation of 

terrestrial invasives, aquatic invasives and pathogens;

■ Work with state and federal agencies to prevent introduction of invasive 

species; 

■ Implement outreach and education programs, including signage, where 

appropriate, and actively support state initiatives on this topic; and,

■ Develop special regulations on the refuge as warranted to control the spread of 

invasive species.

Implementing this program supports refuge goals 1-3 relating to the conservation 

of all wetland and upland habitats

National Natural Landmark

Invasive Species
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-9

Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

The Service Manual chapter on Disease Prevention and Control is not yet 

published. Until it is, we derive guidance on this topic from the Refuge Manual 

and specific directives from the Service Director. In all alternatives, we will 

abide by the Refuge Manual and any specific directives when monitoring and 

abating wildlife and plant diseases. 

The Refuge Manual (7 RM 17.3) lists three objectives for disease prevention and 

control:

1) To manage wildlife populations and habitats so the likelihood of disease 

contraction and contagion are minimized;

2) To provide for early detection and identifi cation of disease mortality when it 

occurs; and

3) To minimize losses of wildlife from disease outbreaks.

These objectives were published in 1982. Since that time, in addition 

to diseases that cause serious mortality among wildlife, more 

attention has been given to those diseases that are transmitted 

through wildlife to humans. 

One serious wildlife disease receiving considerable attention 

worldwide is avian influenza. Of particular concern is the highly 

pathogenic Eurasian form (H5N1). In 2006, all refuges were 

instructed to prepare an Avian Influenza Surveillance and 

Contingency Plan. The plan for Canaan Valley refuge was approved 

in December 2006 and discusses methods for dealing with this 

disease.

In West Virginia, chronic wasting disease (CWD) is also of concern. 

This disease is a progressive brain and nervous system disease 

found in deer and elk that ultimately causes death of infected 

animals. CWD was first documented in Hampshire County, West 

Virginia in 2005. The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources 

(WVDNR) has implemented control and monitoring actions since 

then which have resulted in the documentation of 45 deer testing 

positive for CWD in Hampshire County. Monitoring efforts have so 

far not confirmed

CWD presence in deer anywhere else in the state. A CWD management plan for 

the refuge was approved in 2006.

All four alternatives recognize the refuge’s wetland complex as one of our most 

important management and conservation responsibilities. The wetlands in the 

valley represent the largest contiguous wetland complex in the state of West 

Virginia. They were also fundamentally important in the establishment of the 

refuge and are highlighted as important community types in both the West 

Virginia Conservation Action Plan (2006) and the U.S. Forest Service Final 

Land and Resources Management Plan (2006). The refuge protects at least 73 

documented plant species of concern and much of the wetland area is comprised 

of unique and rare plant communities on a state and regional level. The Canaan 

Valley supports some of the state’s largest and most stable populations of rare 

plant species, such as glade spurge and Jacob’s ladder. More information about 

the rare plant species and communities the refuge supports and protects can be 

found in Chapter 2. 

Monitoring and Abatement 

of Wildlife and Plant 

Diseases

Protecting Wetlands and 

Rare Plant Communities

Canaan wetland

USFWS
3-10 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

Research will continue as a priority especially where related to wetlands, 

wildlife species of concern, and their habitats. Generally, we will approve permits 

for research projects that provide a direct benefit to the refuge or that will 

strengthen our decisions on managing natural resources for biological or public 

use programs on the refuge. The refuge manager also may consider requests that 

do not relate directly to refuge objectives, but instead relate to the protection 

or enhancement of native species and biological diversity in the region and 

support the goals of ecoregional conservation teams, such as the Atlantic Coast 

or Eastern Brook Trout joint ventures and the Central Appalachian Spruce 

Restoration Initiative (CASRI) working group. 

All researchers will be required to submit detailed research proposals following 

the guidelines established by Service policy and refuge staff. Special use permits 

will also identify the schedules for progress reports, the criteria for determining 

when a project should cease, and the requirements for publication or other 

interim and final reports. All publications will acknowledge the Service and the 

role of Service staff as key partners in funding and/or operations. We will ask 

our refuge biologists, other divisions of the Service, USGS, select universities or 

recognized experts, and the WVDNR to peer review and comment on research 

proposals and draft publications, and will share research results internally, 

with these reviewers, and other conservation agencies and organizations. To the 

extent practicable, and given the publication type, all research deliverables will 

conform to Service graphic standards.

Some projects, such as depredation and banding studies, will require additional 

Service permits. The refuge manager will not approve those research projects 

until all required permits are received and the consultation requirements under 

the Endangered Species Act have been met.

All alternatives will employ adaptive management as a strategy to ensure we 

respond quickly to new information or events. The need for adaptive management 

is very compelling today because our present information on refuge species and 

habitats is incomplete, provisional, and subject to change as our knowledge base 

improves.

We must adapt our strategies to respond to new information and/or spatial 

and temporal changes or environmental events that may or may not have been 

predicted. We will continually evaluate management actions, both formally and 

informally, through monitoring or research, to consider whether our original 

assumptions and predictions are still valid. In that way, management becomes a 

proactive process of learning what really works.

The refuge manager is responsible for changing management strategies if 

they do not produce the desired conditions. Significant changes may warrant 

additional NEPA analysis and public comment. Minor changes will not, but we 

will document them in project evaluation reports, or in our annual reports.

Generally, we can increase monitoring and research that support adaptive 

management without additional NEPA analysis, assuming the activities if 

conducted by non-refuge personnel are determined to be compatible by the 

refuge manager. Many of our objectives identify monitoring needs. Our HSIMP 

will determine what is planned in the foreseeable future. Implementing this 

strategy supports all five refuge goals.

Research

Adaptive Management
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-11

Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

NEPA requires site-specific analysis and disclosure of impacts in an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) for all major federal actions. Other 

routine activities that have been found, individually and cumulatively, to have no 

significant effect on the environment, are categorically excluded from the NEPA 

requirements to prepare detailed environmental documents. Those generally 

include administrative actions, and are listed in chapter 4.

Under all alternatives the refuge would continue to address surplus structures 

currently located on Service-owned lands, and would develop a plan for removing 

structures on lands that are acquired in the future. Surplus structures include 

old hunting cabins, barns and hunting platform structures that are in disrepair 

and are not needed for Service use. These structures are not necessary and 

affect the aesthetic values of the refuge. Additionally most of these structures 

are not sound and therefore create a public safety issue. The refuge has worked 

with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) 

Rehabilitation Environmental Action Plan (REAP) program to help remove most 

of these old, dilapidated structures. 

Under all alternatives the Service would also continue to address unnecessary 

access roads and skid trails located on Service-owned lands, and would develop a 

plan for removing these types of roads on lands that are acquired in the future.

In this draft CCP/EA, we propose the following with respect to surplus 

structures and unnecessary access roads and skid trails:

■ Within 3 years of acquiring property that has a structure on it, determine 

if the structure is surplus to refuge needs and, if it is, would remove the 

structure, assuming funding is available. The refuge would restore the site 

by re-grading it to natural topography and hydrology and revegetating it to 

establish desirable conditions. 

■ Within 5 years of CCP approval, inventory and assess all access roads, logging 

roads and skid trails within the refuge, and implement procedures to retire and 

begin to restore unnecessary forest interior, and secondary roads to promote 

watershed and resource protection. All off-road (ORV) and all–terrain vehicles 

(ATV) trails, and all unauthorized trails, would be eliminated to restore and 

protect refuge habitats and wildlife.

■ Within 3 years of acquiring property that has access roads, logging roads, or 

skid trails, implement procedures to retire and restore any unnecessary roads 

to promote watershed and resource protection. 

Implementing this program would support refuge goals 1-3 by protecting 

wetlands from erosion and sedimentation, by reducing transportation pathways 

for invasive species, and by helping to remove edge habitat. 

As explained in chapter 2, “Affected Environment,” the refuge recently became 

aware of the presence of unexploded ordnance left over from military training 

activities during World War II on refuge lands. To what extent refuge lands were 

used for target practice activities is unknown. Therefore, under all alternatives, 

we will coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers to develop a step-down 

management plan on unexploded ordnance in order to addresses public safety 

and remediation. 

Removing Surplus 

Structures and Site 

Restoration

Unexploded Ordinance: 

Public Safety and 

Remediation
3-12 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

All alternatives include our continued participation in land conservation 

partnerships with the goal to permanently protect and sustain federal trust 

resources and other unique natural resource values in the Canaan Valley area 

and the Allegheny Highlands ecosystem. An important component of this goal 

is an objective to improve connectivity between existing conservation tracts 

and preserve public access. There is currently work towards encouraging 

conservation partnerships to evolve into a dynamic, landscape-level, multipartner effort. The list of existing and potential partners is extensive and 

includes the Service, other federal agencies, state agencies, private conservation 

organizations, local communities, private landowners, and private businesses. An 

example of these efforts is the high elevation forest workgroup, a multi-agency, 

Non-Government Organization (NGO), and private land owner effort to conduct 

red spruce restoration throughout the Allegheny Highlands of West Virginia. 

Additionally, a public lands working group was established in 2007 to discuss 

conservation, public use, and other common issues with public land owners in the 

Canaan Valley area.

The refuge currently is responsible for the management of two separate 

easements totaling 44 acres. A conservation easement is a legal agreement 

voluntarily entered into by a property owner and a qualified conservation 

organization such as a land trust or government agency. The easement contains 

permanent restrictions on the use or development of land in order to protect 

its conservation values. One easement managed by the refuge is within Canaan 

Valley, while the third, a Farmer’s Home Administration (FmHA) easement is 

located in Crawley, WV. Across all alternatives, the refuge will still maintain 

management responsibilities for these easements including consultation with 

easement owners, invasive species control, inventory and survey requirements, 

boundary marking and law enforcement.

It is difficult to predict how much time and effort these responsibilities will 

require in the future. However, under any of the alternatives presented herein, 

the responsibility will remain with the project leader stationed Canaan Valley 

refuge. If we were to begin sustained and systematic monitoring of these 

easements, rather than only the current opportunistic enforcement and invasive 

species control, the time commitment would be substantially greater than it 

has been to date. We do not anticipate having the staff available to monitor on 

a regular basis, but it is possible and desirable to begin a modest inventory, 

monitoring and invasive species control program on an annual basis on two of the 

easements.

The refuge would also consider additional conservation easements with private 

landowners. We would work with our realty office and other state, federal 

and non-profit agencies to develop and leverage easement acquisitions when 

opportunities arise.

In the late 1980s to the mid-1990s, the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) 

acquired many properties in central and southwest Virginia through foreclosure 

sales. Under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between 

FmHA and the Service, a review team consisting of Service staff, and staff 

from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Farmers Home 

Administration, and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 

evaluated the properties for their conservation value. Based on the reviews, 

and prior to these properties being resold, permanent conservation easements 

were placed on some of these properties to protect wetlands and other important 

wildlife habitats. Responsibility for enforcing and monitoring these easements 

rests with the Service, and that responsibility was delegated to the closest refuge 

manager. 

Land Conservation 

Partnerships

Managing Conservation 

Easements
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-13

Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

The refuge staff has been conducting invasive species control operations at the 

Crawley easement for the past three years as well as reposting boundaries and 

working with the land owners on trespass issues. Additionally, the staff was 

involved in working with the land owners to develop an access road to their home 

site within the easement boundary in 2001. These projects typically require two 

to three days of staff time to prepare for and conduct operations. In the past 

three years, the staff has spent an average of six staff days a year working on 

easement management issues.

The Service is in the process of reviewing and evaluating how refuges manage 

FmHA easements. Until a final decision is made on whether to change the 

status quo, we will continue to employ the following strategies to discharge our 

responsibilities in managing these easements:

1) Respond to reports of violations or possible violations as they become known. 

Work with landowners, utilizing partnerships where possible, to cooperatively 

resolve and remedy the violations. If necessary, work with the Regional Solicitor 

or US Attorney’s Offi ce to ensure remediation and future compliance; and

2) Develop a process to begin regular inventory and monitoring of FmHA 

easements so that each easement is visited annually. Work with partners and 

other Service offi ces to assist where possible. Conduct control operations for 

invasive species yearly on at least one visit.

The use of prescribed fire has been identified as a potential management tool 

for grassland and early successional habitat management in alternatives A, 

B, and C. Under these alternatives, the refuge would evaluate and use fire as 

a management tool when appropriate. Further details and guidance on using 

prescribed burns for habitat management can be found in the refuge’s Fire 

Management Plan, which was approved in 2002 and revised in 2004. It is available 

by request (contact the refuge), or as a download on the planning website.

Fire Management

Prescribed burnv

USFWS
3-14 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

The refuge recognizes that conditions related to global climate change may affect 

our ability to meet long term biological objectives. Across the Appalachian region, 

current observations have shown average temperatures to have risen more than 

1.5°F; winter average temperatures by 4°F. In general, spring is arriving earlier, 

summers are growing hotter, and winters are becoming warmer and less snowy. 

Utilizing the TNC Climate Wizard program we analyzed the potential 

temperature and precipitation changes predicted for West Virginia by the year 

2050 using an average of the three main climate models (MIROC3.2, CSIROMK3.0 and UKMO-HADCM3). Annual precipitation was predicted to increase 

an estimated 10%; however most change was predicted during the months 

December – May. The warmer months of the year June – August indicated 

a 0-3% decrease in precipitation from historic conditions. Additionally July 

temperatures showed an increase of about 50 F. The Climate Wizard modeling 

program is considered more accurate for prediction of future temperature change 

than for precipitation and mostly from a continental perspective. As such more 

specific predictions at the state scale must be viewed as a coarse estimation 

based on best available climate modeling at this time. Future information will 

continually be sought to evaluate and model the potential effects of climate 

change on refuge resources.

Field et al (2007) reports that several species of animals in North America are 

responding to the effects of climate change. For example the increase in average 

spring temperatures have led to earlier nesting for 28 migrating bird species 

on the east coast of the U.S. (Butler 2003) and to earlier egg laying for tree 

swallows (Dunn and Winkler 1999). Several frog species appear to be responding 

by initiating breeding calls 10 to 13 days earlier than a century ago (Gibbs and 

Breisch 2001).

Information from Audubon’s Christmas Bird Count found 58% of observed 

species are wintering significantly more north in latitude over the past forty 

years. Rising winter temperatures create more suitable habitat for species 

which previously wintered in more southern locations (Audubon 2009). 

Recommendations include protection of migratory bird habitat and improve 

it’s resiliency through increasing connectivity and condition of existing habitat 

(Audubon 2009).

Habitat specialists, like many peatland dependent bird species, are expected to 

be even more heavily impacted by climate change effects due to their increased 

sensitivity to vegetation changes. Areas such as Finzel Swamp in Maryland have 

been studied to analyze the local effect of the peatland community on the avian 

assemblages. Results indicated that Finzel Swamp and areas such as Canaan 

Valley currently provide refugia for a unique and distinct bird species which 

contribute to the avian diversity of the state and region. This diversity could be 

lost over time if temperature changes greatly influence the peatland community 

persistence in high elevation Appalachian wetlands. (Yeany 2009).

Another example of the possible effects of climate change on the region is found 

with predicted effects on stream temperatures and their subsequent impact on 

native fish species. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

(2007) estimates that a significant increase in average annual air temperature 

is projected to eliminate a large percent of the habitat of brook trout in the 

southern Appalachian Mountains. This effect is predicted well outside the 

planning window for this document. However, some actions can begin now to help 

mitigate predicted temperature increases in the region, such as reforestation of 

riparian corridors to improve shading effects.

Climate Change
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-15

Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

Areas like Canaan Valley that are experiencing changes in average temperatures 

could also serve as some of the more important and resilient areas of the 

Appalachians due to higher elevations, existing and potential future plant 

communities, and frost pocket conditions. For example, the refuge’s active role in 

spruce restoration on the refuge and throughout the region is thought to be a way 

to help reduce the severity of climate stresses on the variety of rare and endemic 

species associated with these forests and high elevation wetlands. Increasing 

historic conifer cover in headwater streams may help reduce the overall warming 

effects and help maintain coldwater fisheries on the refuge such as brook trout 

and redside dace.

Warmer winters and possible increased drought conditions could have the effect 

of increasing insect infestations on balsam fir, Eastern hemlock and American 

beech. The balsam and hemlock wooly adelgids which have infested stands of 

balsam fir are beginning to affect hemlock stands in Canaan could increase in 

abundance with warmer winter temperatures and more generations may be 

produced if summer temperatures prolong the season. Drought conditions stress 

trees which can also increase their susceptibility to insect pests (IPCC 2007).

Maintaining and protecting the peatlands on the refuge will help regional 

carbon sequestration goals. Peatland communities are known to sequester 

greater amounts of carbon than other soil types. Analysis should be conducted 

to determine how climate change may influence the changes in peatland areas 

on the refuge, possibly moving them towards drier and therefore a more woody 

plant community type. If this occurs the potential conversion of peat soils may 

affect the amount of carbon sequestered in refuge wetlands. 

Climate change will also likely create an increase in vegetative growth due to 

the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. With an increase in carbon dioxide one 

may expect an increase in photosynthesis and biomass production. Combining 

this information with predicted climate changes one may hypothesize that an 

increased vegetative productivity during a prolonged growing season combined 

with a possible decrease in summer precipitation could create drought stress 

conditions, particularly in the late summer. Increases in precipitation during the 

winter and spring months may exacerbate flooding conditions during snow melt.

Recommendations for forest management include planning for changes in plant 

communities and maintaining and increasing native and natural diversity to 

create a more resilient forest community. This may apply to the spruce forest 

habitat the refuge currently manages. Currently the spruce forest on refuge 

lands is fragmented and exists in relatively small patches. Through restoration 

work it may be possible to increase the patch size and connectivity closer to 

historic stable conditions of this northern forest type soon enough to help improve 

its resiliency to changes in average and seasonal temperature and precipitation 

patterns over the next 50 years. 

Larger, mature trees with well established root systems will likely fair better 

during drought conditions then smaller less developed trees. Additionally a more 

mature and contiguous conifer cover in the higher elevations will help perpetuate 

cooler temperatures on the forest floor creating more conducive conditions 

for natural regeneration and perpetuation of associated wildlife such as the 

threatened Cheat Mountain salamander. Increasing the acreage of red spruce 

through restoration will likely increase the refuge’s role in carbon sequestration 

as shade tolerant species like spruce are known to accumulate more carbon over 

time. Also, an increase in forest cover and mature forest stands will increase the 

carbon sink characteristics of the refuge forest habitat. Given the relatively high 
3-16 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Actions Common to All of the Alternatives

elevation and frost pocket conditions it is possible that habitats in Canaan Valley 

may develop into regionally significant refugia for vulnerable species. 

Refuge plans for maintaining and increasing spruce cover fall into the category 

described by Millar et al 2007 as “resistance to change.” In this paradigm 

management of an ecosystem so that it is more suited to resist the influence or 

forestall the undesired effects of climate change is pursued. In the case of the 

red spruce ecosystem in the central Appalachians, this may be the best course 

to take given the high biological diversity and sensitivity of species tied to this 

ecosystem. Additionally, restoring areas historically in red spruce forest will help 

lend resilience to this forest ecosystem (Millar et al 2007).

Several species may be used to monitor the long term effects of climate change 

to the refuge’s biota. For example, spruce reliant song birds such as the 

blackburnian warbler may be an excellent indicator of the quality of the refuge’s 

conifer forest habitat relative to climate change. Balsam fir represents one of 109 

plant species that have distinctly northern ranges but are able to persist in the 

Valley. Twenty-three of these species and varieties have been reported from five 

or fewer locations in West Virginia (Hudgins and Scott 1988). One or several of 

these plant species could be used for long term climate change monitoring. Focal 

species tied to these unique habitats are likely to be the “canary in the coal mine” 

for changes in habitats tied to climate change. The refuge’s proposed list of focal 

species includes many of these and will incorporate their status into the continued 

adaptive approach to management during uncertain climate change scenarios.

The Service currently has a draft Strategic Plan for addressing climate change 

which will help guide refuge actions including planning, strategic habitat 

conservation, and adaptive management practices that will help us address 

climate change effects on refuge resources. Generally the refuge will continue 

to work with partners and encourage research and monitoring activities which 

will help build an information base with which to monitor changes and develop 

strategies to mitigate significant impacts over time. We will use adaptive 

management to evaluate conditions as they relate to our ability to meet our 

management objectives and integrate new management decisions into existing 

plans based on sound science and best professional judgment.

Refuge System planning policy requires that we conduct a wilderness review 

during the CCP process. The first step is to inventory all refuge lands and 

waters in Service fee simple ownership. Our inventory of this refuge determined 

that one area met the eligibility criteria for a wilderness study area as defined 

by the Wilderness Act. However, the planning team decided not to recommend 

wilderness designation at this time. The results of the wilderness review are 

included in appendix C. 

Service planning policy also requires that we conduct a wild and scenic rivers 

review during the CCP process. We inventoried the river and river segments 

which occur within the refuge acquisition boundary area and determined that 

five river segments met the criteria for wild and scenic river eligibility. These 

river segments and their immediate environments were determined to be freeflowing and possess at least one Outstandingly Remarkable Value. However, 

we are not pursuing further study to determine their suitability, or making a 

recommendation on these river segments at this time because we believe the 

entire river lengths should be studied (not just those on refuge lands) with full 

participation and involvement of our federal, state, local, and non-governmental 

partners. The results of our Wild and Scenic River inventory are included in 

appendix D. All alternatives would provide protection for free-flowing river 

Wilderness Review

Wild and Scenic River 

Review
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-17

Alternative A. Current Management

values, and other river values, pending the completion of future comprehensive 

inter-jurisdictional eligibility studies.

For all major federal actions, NEPA requires the site-specific analysis and 

disclosure of their impacts, either in an environmental assessment (EA) or 

in an EIS. NEPA categorically excludes other, routine activities from that 

requirement. Generally, those include the administrative actions listed in chapter 

4. Most of the major actions proposed in the four alternatives and fully analyzed 

in this draft CCP/EA are described in enough detail to comply with NEPA, and 

would not require additional environmental analysis. Although this list is not allinclusive, the following projects fall into that category:

■ Opening the refuge to fishing by amending 50 CFR 32.68;

■ Implementing changes to the hunt program; 

■ Creating a Research Natural Area; and

■ Enhancing our priority public use programs.

Plans that have already undergone NEPA analysis include the current fire 

management plan (2004), the current hunt plan (2007) and the furbearer 

management and trapping plan (2004). Those environmental documents can be 

requested from refuge headquarters. The following is a list of actions under 

alternatives B, C, and D that would require further NEPA analysis:

■ Create new trails and trail connections. 

■ Construct a parking area, platform and interpretive kiosk where A-Frame Rd. 

enters the refuge.

■ Create new boat launch sites. 

■ Construct an environmental education pavilion on the Beall Trail in the vicinity 

of the Blackwater River. 

Assuming that our regional director selects one of those alternatives for 

implementation, we would pursue that analysis once we develop more site-specific 

details. 

Alternative A satisfies the NEPA requirement of a “no action” alternative, 

which we define as “continuing current management.” It describes our existing 

management priorities and activities, and serves as a baseline for comparing and 

contrasting alternatives B, C, and D. Alternative A portrays current, planned, 

and approved management activities. It describes projects planned, funded, or 

underway, and serves as a baseline for comparisons among the alternatives. 

It would continue these priorities of the biological program: shrubland and 

grassland management for migratory birds, protection and monitoring of 

threatened and endangered species, red spruce and balsam fir community 

restoration, upland and wetland habitat restoration, invasive plant monitoring 

and eradication, and rare plant and animal conservation. The refuge would also 

continue to gather baseline data on ecosystems and plant communities, and would 

manage refuge lands with the most sustainable strategies. 

Conducting Additional 

NEPA Analysis

Alternative A. Current 

Management

Introduction
3-18 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative A. Current Management

Also under alternative A, we would continue current levels of public use and 

outreach as outlined in Chapter 2. Management would sustain these priorities 

as completely as possible, within the limitations of current staffing and the 

present involvement of our conservation partners. Even under this alternative we 

expect visitor use to increase by 10 percent due to an increased desire among the 

general public for outdoor recreation.

The refuge staff currently consists of the following positions: a refuge manager 

(GS-13), a deputy refuge manager (GS-12), a park ranger (GS-11), two wildlife 

biologists (GS-12 and GS-11), a maintenance worker (WG-10), a term park ranger 

(GS-5), a term administrative officer (GS-4), and a law enforcement officer (GS9). A new maintenance facility was completed in 2006 and includes equipment 

storage, vehicle maintenance, a wood shop area and a metal shop area. The shop 

also provides ample office space for the maintenance position. 

Recent renovations to the refuge office and visitor center included improving 

staff and visitor parking facilities. Parking directly outside the refuge office 

and visitor’s center now accommodates 27 personal vehicles, five buses and 

approximately 50 unmarked spaces. 

Many of the objectives in alternative A do not strictly follow the guidance 

in the Service’s goals and objectives handbook because we are describing 

current management decisions and activities that were established prior to 

this guidance. Rather, our descriptions of these activities were derived from a 

variety of formal and informal management decisions and planning documents. 

As such, alternative A objectives are fewer and more subjective in nature than 

alternatives B, C and D, and the rationales for the objectives are less complex. 

Some rationales even refer the reader to alternative B, where we describe our 

rationales more in length.

Map 3-1 illustrates the habitat management strategies for alternative A, map 3-2 

illustrates the public use strategies and map 3-3 illustrates the strategies related 

to hunting.

Bobolink

Mary Konchar
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-19

Alternative A. Current Management

Maintain and perpetuate the ecological integrity of the Canaan Valley wetland complex 

to ensure a healthy and diverse wetland ecosystem providing a full range of natural 

processes, community types, and native floral and faunal diversity.

Protect and manage the 5,570 acre palustrine wetland to maintain functional 

hydrology, perpetuate rare plant communities and provide breeding and 

migration habitat for a variety of priority migratory bird species and other 

species of concern.

Rationale

Protecting wetland function and values is one of the purposes of the refuge. 

Established partly under the authority of the Emergency Wetland Resources Act 

(1986) the refuge protects 5,570 acres of the 8,500 acre wetland habitat in Canaan 

Valley. It represents the largest contiguous wetland complex in the state of West 

Virginia. The wetland plant communities (bog and shrub swamp complex) have 

regional significance (USFWS 1994a, USFWS 1979). Wildlife species tied to the 

refuge wetland habitats are typically rare in the state and several are Partners 

in Flight (PIF) bird species of concern or are listed by the state as “species in the 

greatest need of conservation” (WVDNR 2006). These species include American 

black duck, American bittern, Wilson’s snipe, alder flycatcher, Northern harrier, 

southern bog lemming, and Atlantis fritillary. 

Many wetland areas in Canaan Valley have been degraded through years of 

unmanaged off-road vehicle use as well as intensive logging operations, prior to 

refuge establishment and land acquisition. In many locations, impacts to refuge 

wetlands from erosion and sedimentation are evident. Surface and subsurface 

hydrology have been disrupted in areas where roads or old railroad grades 

impound or channel surface and subsurface flows. 

Preventing the spread and infestation of invasive plants is a priority in protecting 

the diverse wetland complex. 

Strategies

■ Continue to map and evaluate wetland areas impacted by erosion, 

sedimentation and hydrologic disturbance.

■ Continue to minimize all refuge activities that would cause unnecessary 

disturbance to refuge wetland communities.

■ Continue to conduct breeding bird surveys in wetland communities to monitor 

trends especially for birds of conservation concern.

■ Continue to work with partners (universities, colleges, NGOs, and federal and 

state agencies) on wetland monitoring and research projects.

■ Continue biannual breeding amphibian call surveys and annual vernal pool 

monitoring.

GOAL 1

Objective 1.1: (Forested, 

Shrub and Herbaceous 

Wetlands and Open Water)
3-20 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative A. Current Management

Protect 132 acres of sensitive conifer wetland plant communities from beaverinduced prolonged inundation and other disturbances to perpetuate their 

associated flora and fauna and benefit rare plant species, rare plant communities, 

migratory birds such as Blackburnian and Canada warblers and endangered 

Indiana bats.

Rationale

Reports from the 1800s describe extensive wetland coniferous forests throughout 

Canaan Valley. Today 2%, or 132 acres, of the refuge wetlands are coniferous 

forested wetlands, composed of red spruce, eastern hemlock, balsam fir, and 

associated species. These forests occur on low-lying wetland sections of the 

refuge and along the floodplains associated with riparian corridors such as the 

Blackwater River through Middle Ridge.

For more information on forested wetlands see the rationale for alternative B, 

Objective 1.2.

Exotic pest control, controlling beaver and deer abundance, and perpetuating 

the range-limited subspecies of balsam fir found in the valley, are important 

management actions which perpetuate the conifer swamp communities. 

Strategies

■ Continue to work with volunteers to support bi-annual spruce and fir planting 

projects in wetland and riparian communities.

■ Continue to support cone collecting and seed extraction of conifer species 

through volunteer support.

■ Continue to partner with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) NRCS 

(Alderson, WV) to store and propagate conifers for restoration purposes.

■ Continue to focus planting on habitats currently supporting small aggregations 

of spruce and fir.

■ Continue to support conifer planting efforts through grant funding with 

minimal use of station funds.

■ Continue to work with university partners and other researchers to evaluate 

spruce restoration techniques and prioritize locations for restoration activities.

■ Continue targeted beaver trapping program to prevent beaver impacts to 

riparian and wetland conifer forest communities.

■ Continue to participate in the multi-agency Red Spruce MOU.

■ Continue to maintain and monitor balsam fir exclosures to evaluate impacts of 

deer browse on balsam fir reproduction, growth and the success of associated 

wetland plant species.

■ Continue acoustical monitoring efforts to detect foraging locations of Indiana 

bats during breeding and migration seasons.

Objective 1.2: (Forested 

Wetlands)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-21

Alternative A. Current Management

Manage and protect 55 miles of stream and a dynamic beaver pond system 

(currently 85 acres) for wetland dependent wildlife including cold water fish 

species such as brook trout and redside dace, and for breeding and foraging 

habitat for migratory birds such as American black duck, wood duck, and 

American bittern. Also, allow the process of beaver pond formation and 

succession to occur naturally.

Rationale

See rationale description detailed in alternative B, Objective 1.4.

Strategies

■ Continue to work with WVDNR and other partners to support inventories of 

cold water habitat to document persistence of native brook trout and redside 

dace.

■ Use the framework provided in the Interagency Status Report on the Fisheries 

Resources of the Upper Blackwater River in West Virginia (Moss et al. 2007) 

to plan future management actions on stream and river habitats.

■ Continue to protect from disturbance isolated beaver ponds and river 

habitats that support nesting, feeding and roosting areas for migratory birds 

by allowing public access only from approved public use trails where they 

intersect stream or corridors or pond habitat.

■ Continue to allow the dynamic nature of beaver pond formation and evolution 

where bottomland forested and rare plant communities are not threatened.

■ Continue to inventory and monitor priority wildlife and plant species in this 

habitat type. 

■ Continue acoustical monitoring efforts to detect foraging locations of Indiana 

bats during breeding and migration seasons.

Perpetuate the ecological integrity of upland northern hardwood and northern 

hardwood-conifer forests to sustain native wildlife and plant communities, including 

species of conservation concern, for the development of late-successional forest 

characteristics, and to perpetuate the biological diversity and integrity of the upland 

forest ecosystem.

Protect and manage 6,616 acres of upland hardwood and mixed hardwood-conifer 

forest lands to provide breeding habitat for forest interior and other priority bird 

species, threatened and endangered species, and a diversity of other wildlife.

Rationale

Upland forested habitat is the largest plant community type on Canaan Valley’s 

refuge lands. It currently provides functional breeding habitat for a diversity of 

forest birds including area sensitive species such as ovenbird, scarlet tanager, 

and eastern wood peewee. Maintaining refuge forest land in large un-fragmented 

blocks will continue to provide this important interior forest bird habitat. The 

upland mixed hardwood-spruce forests also protect populations of the threatened 

Cheat Mountain salamander and recently de-listed West Virginia northern flying 

squirrel. Other wildlife tied to this community type includes the state mammal 

species of concern, fisher and southern water shrew. 

Objective 1.3: (Open 

Water / Aquatic)

GOAL 2

Objective 2.1: (Northern 

Hardwood and Conifer 

Spruce / Mixed Forest)
3-22 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative A. Current Management

Land use history includes repeated and extensive logging activities. The most 

recent timber extraction ended in November of 2001, just prior to the acquisition 

of acreage that encompass the center and northern portions of the Canaan Valley. 

As a result, refuge forested habitat is in varying stages of regeneration. Selective 

logging practices coupled with the results of deer browse pressure and beech root 

suckering have created forests with less overall species and structural diversity 

and understory development than would be expected in a healthy unaltered 

forest. A vast network of old logging roads fragments forest habitat and could 

serve as corridors for introducing invasive plant species. Allowing maturation of 

forest trees and encouraging stand diversity where possible will help promote the 

biological integrity of the refuge’s forested habitats and likely improve nesting 

and foraging habitat for migratory birds and other species of concern.

We state in our rationale for Objective 1.1 that the refuge was principally 

established to protect wetlands, associated wildlife habitats, and water quality. 

These resources are all potentially impacted by land uses in the adjacent 

uplands in the watershed, so protection of these uplands has also been a goal. 

Our primary management strategy has been to acquire these habitat types from 

willing sellers within our approved acquisition boundary. Otherwise, our current 

management strategy has been passive and would continue to be focused on 

collecting baseline information, monitoring key resources, and treating invasive 

plant species.

Strategies

■ Continue to work with partners to evaluate management options for promoting 

mature forest characteristics, forest species diversity, and understory 

development.

■ Continue to conduct breeding bird surveys in forest communities to monitor 

trends especially for birds of conservation concern.

■ Protect the core spruce-dominated forests from disturbance, fragmentation, or 

invasive species infestation.

■ Continue to work with partners to experiment with methods to achieve latesuccessional characteristics.

Over the next 15 years improve and expand priority upland spruce cover in areas 

currently lacking adequate seed source or where patch size and connectivity 

are inhibiting the conservation of migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species and other wildlife species of special concern.

Rationale

See rationale description detailed in alternative B, Objective 2.5

Strategies 

■ For targeted planting efforts, continue to identify locations where upland 

spruce forest is isolated and occurs in small patches.

■ Continue to work with partners, particularly through the Red Spruce MOU 

agreement, to collect, store and propagate red spruce seed for conservation 

efforts on and off refuge property.

■ Continue to support conifer restoration primarily through grant and partner 

funds.

Objective 2.2: (Conifer 

Spruce / Mixed Forest)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-23

Alternative A. Current Management

Conserve and manage spruce forest habitat for threatened Cheat Mountain 

salamander populations to prevent disturbance and habitat fragmentation and to 

promote population viability. 

Rationale

The Cheat Mountain salamander is a threatened species and a priority for 

Service protection and management. They are only found in West Virginia and 

are limited to approximately 80 disjointed populations from only five counties 

in the state. The refuge’s population represents one of the most northern for 

this species. Being a federally threatened species tied to highly restricted plant 

communities, they are also considered a priority for conservation by the state as 

detailed in the state Wildlife Action Plan (WVDNR 2006). 

Only one tract at the south end of the refuge has been documented as occupied 

habitat for this species. Habitat requirements include a cool moist forest floor 

with adequate coarse woody debris and typically with a spruce or mixed sprucehardwood forest overstory. The main threat to the Cheat Mountain salamander is 

degradation of high-elevation red spruce and spruce/northern hardwood forests. 

Disturbances exposing the forest floor to sunlight, such as the lack of adequate 

forest canopy, change the cool, moist conditions on which these animals depend. 

Other threats include competition with other salamanders, drought, and pollution.

Past land use on the refuge has removed 

most of the historical conifer forest 

cover allowing forest floor temperatures 

to increase, and relative humidities 

to decrease, thereby reducing habitat 

suitability for this species. Additionally, 

much of the tract where the salamander 

habitat is located is laced with logging and 

skid roads, some of which are active crosscountry ski trails operated by White Grass 

Touring Center. While roads and some 

trails have been noted impediments to 

Cheat Mountain salamander movements, 

those on the refuge adjacent to salamander 

populations have a partially closed canopy 

and are not open to use during the time 

of year when salamanders are active. 

This prevents the bare soil conditions 

created through excessive travel which have been noted as possible barriers to 

salamander movements in other areas (USFWS 1991; WVDNR 2000, 1999).

Strategies

■ Continue to monitor known populations to document persistence and 

reproductive success.

■ Continue to inventory suitable habitat to document new populations.

■ Continue to restore red spruce in and adjacent to occupied habitat.

■ Continue to work with partners to research habitat limitations, habitat 

improvement and mitigation options and the impacts of current management on 

salamander populations as identified in the recovery plan.

Objective 2.3: (Cheat 

Mountain Salamander)

Cheat mountain 

salamander

Ken Sturm/USFWS
3-24 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative A. Current Management

Conserve and manage habitat for the recently delisted West Virginia northern 

flying squirrel to prevent disturbance, ensure population viability, reduce habitat 

fragmentation, increase occupied habitat, and ensure the squirrels’ persistence 

on refuge land.

Rationale

Even though the West Virginia northern flying squirrel was recently removed 

from the Endangered Species List, it still remains an important species for 

conservation and management on the refuge. The West Virginia northern 

flying squirrel was identified as a high priority in the state Wildlife Action Plan 

(WVDNR 2006). The species was also used as an indicator of quality spruce and 

mixed spruce-northern hardwood forest habitat by the USFS in its recent Forest 

Plan (USFS 2006). The Service developed a “Red Spruce-Northern Hardwood 

Ecosystem MOU” with multiple federal, state and non-governmental organization 

(NGO) partners. The vision of the MOU includes specifically to “...provide 

functional habitat to sustain the viability of the West Virginia northern flying 

squirrel...” (USFWS 2007b). As an active partner in the MOU, the refuge will 

continue to consider the West Virginia northern flying squirrel a focal species.

Strategies

■ Continue to monitor occupied habitat for population persistence.

■ Continue to inventory suitable habitat to identify new occupied habitat.

■ Continue to work with partners to research squirrel ecology and habitat 

improvement as identified in the Recovery Plan.

■ Continue to be an active partner in the above-mentioned MOU.

Provide and promote through active management a diversity of successional habitats 

in upland and wetland-edge shrublands, grasslands, old fields, and hardwood 

communities to sustain early successional and shrubland specialists such as goldenwinged warbler, American woodcock, brown thrasher, Eastern towhee, field sparrow, 

and other species of concern.

Manage 114 acres of aspen communities using accepted silvicultural practices to 

provide and sustain a mosaic of early successional (0-15 year class) aspen habitat 

for breeding and foraging American woodcock, brown thrasher, Eastern towhee, 

golden-winged warbler, and other priority migratory bird species. 

Rationale

See rationale description detailed in alternative B, Objective 3.1.

Strategies

■ Continue to conduct rotational aspen patch cutting for improved aspen clone 

development.

■ Continue to monitor the success of regeneration cuts relative to deer herbivory 

and site conditions.

■ Continue breeding bird surveys, especially for birds of conservation concern.

Objective 2.4: (West 

Virginia Northern Flying 

Squirrel)

GOAL 3

Objective 3.1: (Forested 

Wetlands – Aspen 

Woodlands)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-25

Alternative A. Current Management

Manage and protect upland and wetland-margin shrub habitat to provide 

breeding and migration habitat for migratory birds, particularly American 

woodcock, alder flycatcher, brown thrasher, Eastern towhee, and other species of 

conservation concern.

Rationale

The refuge is comprised of 4,030 acres of shrub habitat, one of the largest 

shrublands in the northeastern United States. Comprised of alder, Spirea, St. 

Johns wort, and other shrub species, 

these community types provide important 

breeding, foraging, and migration habitat 

for a variety of migratory birds including 

American woodcock, alder flycatcher, 

and swamp sparrow. The state’s Wildlife 

Action Plan lists these species as 

conservation priorities (WVDNR 2006). 

Although mostly rare in West Virginia, 

all three are relatively abundant on 

the refuge, likely due to the extensive 

suitable habitat. 

Alder communities are some of the most 

botanically diverse areas on the refuge 

harboring many state recognized rare 

plant species and plant communities. 

Protecting these unique and rare plants 

is consistent with the valley’s NNL 

designation, the Biological Integrity 

and Diversity policy, and the documents 

prepared for refuge establishment. 

For more information on this objective, 

see rationale description detailed in 

alternative B, Objective 3.3.

Strategies

■ Continue to manage shrub communities, particularly at the south end of the 

refuge, to increase habitat structural diversity and provide singing grounds for 

American woodcock.

■ Continue to document and monitor rare plant species locations and populations 

associated with shrubland habitat.

■ Continue to mow low shrub cover within established hawthorn savannah to 

promote low herbaceous cover for foraging habitat for American woodcock.

■ Continue to evaluate alder regeneration plots.

■ Continue to conduct breeding bird surveys in shrub communities to monitor 

trends especially for birds of conservation concern.

Objective 3.2: (Shrubland)

Spotted salamander eggs

Ken Sturm/USFWS
3-26 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative A. Current Management

Over the next 15 years, manage on a rotational basis, 531 acres of grassland 

habitat to provide breeding and foraging areas for priority grassland-obligate 

bird species including grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, Henslow’s sparrow, and 

savannah sparrow and to provide fall migration and wintering habitat for a 

variety of landbirds and raptors.

Rationale

See rationale description for alternative B, Objective 3.4.

Strategies

■ Mow, hay, or burn grasslands on a 3-5 year rotation, or as necessary, to 

maintain productive breeding habitat for grassland obligate bird species.

■ Ensure at least 40% of refuge grasslands remain unmowed grasses or 

herbaceous cover to provide forage and cover for migration habitat.

■ Continue to conduct breeding bird surveys in grassland communities to 

monitor trends especially for birds of conservation concern.

■ Continue to cooperate with partners to investigate site fidelity and dispersal of 

refuge nesting grassland species.

Visitors of all abilities enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

education to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of refuge 

habitats, wildlife, and cultural history.

Continue to provide quality, safe, and compatible hunting opportunities according 

to state and refuge regulations and seasons through a refuge permit system. 

Rationale

Hunting is one of the six priority public uses to receive enhanced consideration on 

national wildlife refuges according to the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act. Hunting 

is also a historic, traditional, and very popular activity in the Canaan Valley 

area, in the state of West Virginia, and in the Refuge System. Providing wildlifedependent recreational opportunities like hunting helps foster an appreciation for 

wildlife.

The demand for hunting on public land has increased as private lands have 

become less available for hunting. Refuge hunt programs should promote 

positive hunting values and hunter ethics such as fair chase and sportsmanship. 

In general, hunting on refuges should be superior to that available on other 

public or private land and should provide participants with reasonable harvest 

opportunities, uncrowded conditions, fewer conflicts between hunters, relatively 

undisturbed wildlife, and limited interference from or dependence on mechanized 

aspects of the sport. The refuge may issue hunt permits and create hunt zones to 

accomplish some of these objectives. 

In particular, the refuge has been concerned about the large local deer population 

and its impact on refuge habitats. The refuge will continue to work with the state 

and neighboring land partners to develop creative ways to further reduce the 

deer herd.

The refuge updated its hunt plan and wrote an accompanying EA in the spring 

of 2007. Both documents went through a public review process. Revisions were 

made and the documents were finalized. 

Objective 3.3: (Managed 

Grasslands)

GOAL 4

Objective 4.1: (Hunting)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-27

Alternative A. Current Management

Strategies

■ Continue to provide quality, safe, compatible hunting opportunities according 

to state regulations and seasons through a refuge permit system.

■ Continue to operate under the 2007 Amended Refuge Hunt Plan (USFWS, 

2007c).

■ Continue to allow night hunting for raccoon.

■ Continue to offer a refuge hunt program that follows state of West Virginia 

seasons and regulation. The exception is that we do not allow hunting from the 

end of February through the beginning of September, except for spring gobbler 

season. Hunters are required to obtain a refuge permit prior to hunting on the 

refuge.

■ Continue to allow the use of pursuit dogs per state regulations and in season 

for bear and raccoon. Up to six dogs per hunting party are allowed for bear 

hunting and up to four dogs for raccoon. Hunt dogs are allowed off-leash.

■ Continue to maintain two accessible hunt blinds. Maintain a reservation 

system for the blinds where the maximum stay is one week. If the demand for 

accessible hunt blinds exceeds those we provide, we will implement a lottery 

system and reduce reservation time. 

■ Limit the number of hunt permits if data shows a need to do so to preserve the 

quality of the hunt.

■ Work with adjacent land managers and the WVDNR to encourage cooperative, 

managed deer hunts.

■ Continue to provide parking in designated areas for hunters.

Promote quality fishing opportunities where approved roads and trails provide 

access to state jurisdictional waterways.

Rationale

The refuge currently has no approved fishing plan and is not officially open for 

fishing. Fishing occurs in certain areas according to state regulations. There 

are no special refuge regulations for fishing other than for stream access. The 

WVDNR regularly stocks the Blackwater River along Rt. 32, along Timberline 

Road, and in Canaan Valley Resort State Park. 

Strategies

■ Continue to promote quality fishing opportunities according to state 

regulations. 

■ Allow fishing where approved roads or trails provide access to state 

jurisdictional waterways or other water bodies on the refuge.

■ Continue to maintain the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant 

fishing platform along Timberline Road and promote awareness of this new 

platform.

■ Continue to permit anglers to use parking areas provided near trailheads. 

Anglers may also park within a road’s right of way unless otherwise restricted 

by the refuge or Department of Highway (DOH). The refuge has no special 

parking areas specifically for anglers.

Objective 4.2: (Fishing)
3-28 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative A. Current Management

■ Continue to participate in the County’s annual fishing derby.

■ Continue to participate in the HOFNOD (Hooked On Fishing, Not On Drugs) 

Exposition. 

Provide opportunities for visitors to engage in wildlife viewing and nature 

photography along existing trails and roads. 

Rationale

Wildlife observation and nature photography represent two of the six priority 

public uses to receive enhanced consideration on refuges according to the 1997 

Refuge Improvement Act. Providing increased opportunities for the public to 

participate in these activities on the refuge promotes visitor appreciation and 

support for refuge programs as well as habitat conservation efforts in Canaan 

Valley and wherever they live and travel. Opportunities to view and photograph 

wildlife in a natural setting abound on this refuge due to its rural, undeveloped 

landscape.

The refuge permits the public to use several different modes of access to 

facilitate opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. These include 

hiking, bicycling, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, horseback riding, and 

canoeing. These uses are zoned to minimize conflicts and impacts to the refuge’s 

resources. 

Strategies

■ Continue to maintain 31 miles of roads and trails year-round for public use. 

■ Continue to work with the refuge’s volunteer-based Adopt-a-Trail program to 

maintain and improve trail conditions, signage and blazing.

■ Complete the accessible boardwalk loop on Freeland Trail.

■ Maintain three unimproved boat launches at Timberline Road, Beall Tract and 

Camp 70.

Objective 4.3: (Wildlife 

Observation and 

Photography)

Cabin mountain

Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-29

Alternative A. Current Management

■ Continue to prohibit overnight parking.

■ Continue to permit leashed dogs on refuge trails.

■ Continue to permit limited off trail use by non-hunters through issuance of 

Special use permits. Permits will be issued on a case by case basis to ensure 

compatibility with the purposes of the refuge. 

■ Continue to permit White Grass Touring Center to run a commercial crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing operation on 10 miles of trails on Serviceowned lands.

Provide environmental education and interpretation opportunities that foster 

stewardship of the environment and reflect refuge priorities, including managing 

for migratory birds, endangered species, and wetlands. 

Rationale 

Environmental education and nature interpretation are identified in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 as priority public 

uses. They serve as valuable tools in the protection of our nation’s wildlife and 

habitat resources. Educating young people about wildlife conservation fosters an 

appreciation of the important role the refuge plays in support of these efforts and 

motivates individuals to make responsible environmental choices in the future.

Environmental education in the Refuge System incorporates on-site, offsite, and distance-learning materials, activities, programs, and products that 

address the audience’s course of study, the mission of the Refuge System 

and the management purposes of the refuge. The goal of environmental 

education is to promote an awareness of the basic ecological foundations for 

the interrelationships between human activities and natural systems. Through 

curriculum-based environmental education, both on- and off-refuge, refuge staff 

and partners hope to motivate students and other persons interested in learning 

the role of management in maintaining healthy ecosystems and conserving our 

fish and wildlife resources. 

Interpretation is an educational activity aimed at revealing relationships, 

examining systems, and exploring how the natural world and human activities 

intertwine. One of its goals is to stimulate additional interest and positive 

action. Interpretation is both educational and recreational in nature. That is, 

participants voluntarily become involved in interpretive activities because they 

enjoy them, and in the process, they learn about the complex issues confronting 

fish and wildlife resource managers. Although audiovisual media, exhibits, 

demonstrations, and presentations are often advantageous and necessary 

components of interpretation, the program emphasizes first-hand experience 

with the environment. 

The visitor center exists primarily to facilitate environmental education and 

interpretation by providing videos and exhibits that serve to educate the public 

about the refuge’s resources. However, the visitor center also facilitates hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography by providing information about 

where and when visitors can engage in those activities. 

Objective 4.4: 

(Environmental Education 

and Interpretation)
3-30 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative A. Current Management

Strategies

Environmental Education and Interpretation

■ Continue to provide an annual “Wild School Day” refuge experience for local 

students.

■ Continue to work with Tucker County Connections on their 5th grade threeday “camp” and on other programs.

■ Continue to work with local Girl Scouts on their summer day camp off-refuge.

■ Assist teachers and youth group leaders with refuge field trips upon request 

whenever staff is available. 

■ Continue to provide a small curriculum library where teachers may find 

lessons to teach about the environment.

■ Continue to support the local area Master Naturalist training program, 

providing space indoors and outdoors and providing instructors.

■ Continue to work with colleges and other partners on service learning and 

forest restoration projects. 

■ Continue to maintain interpretive signs at trail heads and along trails.

■ Continue to provide a variety of on-refuge indoor and outdoor public programs 

related to nature and the refuge. 

■ Continue to work with White Grass Touring Center on winter interpretive 

programs and educational materials. 

Visitor Center

■ Continue to open the visitor center 4 days per week. 

■ Recruit work camper volunteers and local and part-time resident volunteers to 

help staff the visitor center.

■ Continue to provide visitor center exhibits that illustrate the variety of habitats 

on the refuge and in the local area in general, and that promote the mission of 

the Service and of the Refuge System. 

■ Continue to employ a STEP (Student Temporary Employment Program) 

student to help staff the visitor center on Saturdays.
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-31

Alternative A. Current Management

Collaborate with partners to promote the natural resources of Canaan Valley and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Continue to participate in events with local partners to advocate resource 

conservation and stewardship and to promote the mission of the Refuge System. 

Rationale 

Public outreach improves recognition of the refuge, the Refuge System and the 

Service among neighbors, local leaders, conservation organizations and elected 

officials, thus generating support for conservation in the region.

Outreach can take many forms. Refuge staff often participates in local events, 

thus facilitating direct communication with the public and raising the visibility of 

the refuge. In Fiscal Year 2008, three off-site exhibits were presented by refuge 

staff, serving 862 participants. Also the refuge manager began a public lands 

working group, which bring together land managers to discuss collaboration 

opportunities and areas of common interest. 

Strategies

■ Participate in public lands working group.

■ Participate in community outreach events such as HOFNOD and Forest 

Festival.

■ Build working partnerships with NGOs and municipalities and through the 

Private Lands program at the West Virginia FWS Field Office.

■ Continue to take interactive traveling exhibits to local festivals as time and 

staff permit. 

Increase public awareness and attract visitors to Canaan Valley and the 

refuge through various forms of media, including local television, the Internet, 

newspapers and promotional advertising.

Rationale

Good public relations depend on many factors. Important among these is open 

and continuing communication between the refuge and the public. Various 

means are available to refuge managers by which to communicate information 

effectively, such as contact with the public through refuge programs, news media 

interviews, news releases, and direct mailing. We will continue to facilitate 

communication with the community and stakeholders.

GOAL 5

Objective 5.1: (Outreach)

Objective 5.2: 

(Communication)
3-32 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative A. Current Management

Strategies

■ Continue to write news articles for the Parsons Advocate and Elkins 

Intermountain.

■ Continue to write articles for the Timberdoodle (Friends of the 500th’s 

newsletter).

■ Continue to write articles and post announcements in newsletters of the 

valley’s homeowners associations.

■ Continue to conduct outreach to adjacent landowners.

Camp Horseshoe Youth Fishing Derby

Jackie Burns/USFWS
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-33

Map 3-1 Alternative A – Proposed Habitat Management
3-34 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative A – Public Use Map 3-2
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-35

Map 3-3 Alternative A – Hunt Map
3-36 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Alternative B is the alternative our planning team recommends to our Regional 

Director for implementation. It includes an array of management actions that, in 

our professional judgment, work best towards achieving the refuge’s purposes, 

the vision and goals, and would make an important contribution to conserving 

federal trust resources of conservation concern in West Virginia and the central 

Appalachians. It is the alternative that would most effectively provide low-impact 

wildlife dependent recreation and address the significant issues identified in 

chapter 1. We believe it is reasonable, feasible, and practical within the 15-year 

timeframe. 

This alternative is designed to balance the conservation of a mixed forest matrix 

landscape with the management of early successional habitats and the protection 

of wetlands for which we believe the refuge can make the most important 

ecological contribution within the Canaan Valley watershed, Allegheny Highlands 

and the Refuge System. The habitat types we describe support a wide variety of 

federal trust resources, in particular, birds of conservation concern identified in 

the BCR 28 region, Physiographic Area 12 and wetlands. For each habitat type 

objective we identify “focal species”, whose life and growth requirements would 

guide management activities in that respective habitat type. Focal species were 

selected because they are federal trust resources, identified as priorities in local 

or regional resource planning documents, or Canaan Valley provides significant 

habitat for populations of those species. Focal species represent species whose 

habitat needs, in our opinion, broadly represent the habitat requirements for a 

majority of other federal trust species and native wildlife and plants dependent on 

that respective habitat type. See appendix E for a full description of the process 

for selecting focal species and priority habitats for the refuge. Also, alternative 

B addresses the Refuge System’s mandate to consider managing refuge habitat 

under the Biological Integrity and Diversity and Environmental Health policy 

(601 FW 3) (2001).

Under alternative B the hunt program would remain virtually the same as it is 

now, except that the refuge would take steps toward facilitating the removal of 

more deer from the refuge and open more tracts for rifle use to increase deer 

harvest. We would officially open the refuge to fishing by amending 50 CFR 

32.68, and we would promote fishing opportunities. To facilitate opportunities 

for wildlife observation and photography we would create trail connections that 

would offer longer trail routes and that would allow users to travel from the 

north end of the refuge to the south end, and vice versa, while mostly staying 

on refuge lands. We would expand the visitor center hours and we would build 

a new environmental education pavilion. We would also increase the number of 

environmental education and interpretation programs being offered on and off 

the refuge. As a result of this increase in infrastructure for visitor services we 

expect that visitor use would increase by 15 percent.

In alternative B, we propose a staff of 12.5, which is the recommended number of 

positions in the 2008 staffing model. Staffing models were developed to answer 

the following basic question: “What level of staffing is needed to operate and 

manage a station to achieve the station’s purpose, contribute to the mission 

and goals of the Refuge System, and comply with the Refuge Improvement Act 

and other laws, regulations, and policy?” Earlier efforts suggest there are 10 

functional categories that describe the work we do or need to do on stations in 

Alternative B. The 

Service-Preferred 

Alternative (Focal 

Species

Introduction
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-37

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

the Refuge System. These are: wildlife and habitat, visitor services, facilities 

and equipment, maintenance, realty, planning, communications, business 

management, information technology, law enforcement, and fire management. 

The model gives a total number of full time employees needed at a station to do 

the work, but management must still decide the best mix of disciplines to do that 

work and whether to deploy part-time, seasonal or permanent employees. To 

support the expanded biological and visitor services programs under alternative 

B we would convert our administrative assistant and park ranger term positions 

into full time, permanent positions, and we would add a refuge operations 

specialist position, a permanent seasonal maintenance worker, a permanent park 

ranger position, and a permanent biological technician.

Map 3-4 illustrates the habitat management strategies for alternative B, map 3-5 

illustrates the public use strategies, and map 3-6 illustrates the strategies related 

to hunting.

Maintain and perpetuate the ecological integrity of the Canaan Valley wetland complex 

to ensure a healthy and diverse wetland ecosystem providing a full range of natural 

processes, community types, and native floral and faunal diversity.

Within 15 years, maintain and improve the biological integrity, diversity and 

environmental health of the 5,573-acre refuge wetland complex and prioritize 

management actions to improve an index of ecological integrity by 10%, to limit 

invasive plant infestation to standards established by NatureServe, and to 

limit excessive deer browse which inhibits natural succession and regeneration. 

Management will emphasize and reflect the composition, function and diversity of 

this habitat type as it would occur under natural environmental influences.

Rationale

The refuge currently protects 5,573 acres or 67% of all wetland habitats within 

the Canaan Valley watershed. The wetlands of Canaan Valley represent almost 30 

percent of the total wetland acreage in the state (Evans et al. 1982). 

As early as 1974, Canaan Valley was officially recognized as a regionally 

significant wetland area through the designation of 15,400 acres as a NNL, 

administered by the Park Service. The extensive wetlands and diversity of plant 

species, particularly plants more typical of northern latitudes, were cited as the 

primary purposes for the NNL designation (NPS 2000).

In all of the founding documents including the 1979 EIS and 1994 EA, the 

importance of the wetlands was emphasized as a reason for establishing Canaan 

Valley refuge:

■ “Canaan Valley’s wetland and wildlife habitat resources are considered 

nationally significant.” (USFWS 1994b, USFWS 1994c).

■ “(Canaan Valley’s wetland area)...is listed as a priority for protection in the 

Service’s Regional Wetland Concept Plan, and considered by the state of West 

Virginia as the most important wetland in the state.” (USFWS 1994b, USFWS 

1994c)

■ “... (Canaan Valley)...contains the largest known freshwater wetland area in 

the central and southern Appalachians” (NPS 2000).

■ “The purpose of the refuge acquisition is to insure the ecological integrity 

of Canaan Valley and the continued availability of its wetland, botanical, and 

wildlife resources to the citizens of the United States” (USFWS 1979).

GOAL 1

Objective 1.1 (Forested, 

Shrub and Herbaceous 

Wetlands and Open Water)
3-38 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

The importance of protecting wetlands in Canaan Valley was further defined 

through one of the enabling legislative acts, the Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act, used to establish the refuge and further detailed in Chapter 1.

Wetland habitats are considered critical components of functioning ecosystems. 

The state Wildlife Action Plan (2006) notes that wetland habitats harbor up 

to 23% of the state’s plant species and that wetland is one of the state’s most 

critically important habitat types. Because less than one-half of one percent of 

the state’s land area occurs as wetlands, those communities and related species 

are of high conservation value. Wetland types are also noted as rare community 

types in the USFS Monongahela Forest Plan (USFS 2006). These facts 

emphasize the importance of the refuges’ role in the state’s wetland protection 

and conservation efforts.

Maintaining and perpetuating the ecological integrity of the wetland complex 

in Canaan Valley fits well with the Refuge System’s Biological Integrity, 

Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3). This policy prescribes 

that refuges maintain and restore, where appropriate, the “biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health” of the Refuge System. It provides refuge 

managers with an evaluation process to analyze each refuge and recommend 

the best management direction to prevent further degradation of environmental 

conditions, and where appropriate and in concert with refuge purposes and 

System mission, restore lost or severely degraded components. By providing 

for the full range of natural processes and native floral and faunal diversity, the 

refuge will be implementing the policy. 

The primary known threats to the ecological integrity of the wetland complex in 

Canaan Valley are past land use practices (including excessive and destructive 

public use), an unchecked beaver population, an abundant white-tail deer 

population, invasive and exotic pests, and atmospheric deposition. We developed 

management strategies to ensure that these specific threats, with the exception 

of atmospheric deposition, are addressed. To identify, prioritize, and abate 

the most important of these and other unknown threats to the integrity of the 

wetland complex, we will develop an index of ecological integrity. Once created, 

adaptive management actions will strive to improve the index score over the 15 

years of this comprehensive plan.

Invasive pest control, hydrologic restoration, and deer abundance reduction are 

targeted as important management actions prior to the creation of the index of 

ecological integrity. Invasive plant species such as purple loosestrife, Japanese 

knotweed, garlic mustard, and Japanese stiltgrass pose imminent threats to 

the wetland communities. These species have been documented within Canaan 

Valley or Tucker County, but have limited occurrence on the refuge. By thorough 

monitoring and rapid control, we will contain their spread to no greater than the 

thresholds established for individual invasive species by NatureServe, (FaberLangendoen et al 2008) with emphasis on controlling their encroachment into 

sensitive or rare plant communities. According to the NatureServe protocol, 

areas are ranked “excellent” to “poor” based on the percent total abundance 

(percent of invasive species relative to the native species) of key invasive plant 

species. A threshold of 3% total abundance is cited as “good” and would be 

applied to invasive plant species such as purple loosestrife or Japanese knotweed 

which are a particular threat to the refuges’ habitats. We will strive to prevent 

any new occurrences of invasive plants that are already below a 3% total 

abundance threshold, and we will not allow plants to exceed a 3% threshold once 

they are established.
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-39

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Historic land use practices have altered the hydrologic regime of the wetlands 

and adjacent slopes draining to the wetlands. Impact reports of past ORV use in 

Canaan Valley detail direct loss of vegetation, colonization by non-native plant 

species and excessive erosion (Stout 1992, USFWS 1993). Railroad grades, 

roads, and trails impede the flow of surface and subsurface flow in some areas, 

channelize water flow in others, impound water, and accelerate soil erosion and 

stream sedimentation. Bartgis and Berdine (1991) note that roads and trails 

divert water from their original drainage patterns in Canaan Valley. This can 

result in some drainages becoming drier while others accelerate erosion by being 

forced to carrying more water. 

Zeedyk (2002) documented many instances in Canaan Valley where existing 

roads and trails were channeling water away from historic wetlands and in some 

cases causing erosion and sedimentation of bog and other wetland communities. 

These problems have “profoundly if not irreversibly altered” the extent, depths, 

characteristics, and function of the wetlands on the Main Tract (Zeedyk 2002). 

Although some of the impacted areas may have stabilized since their disturbance, 

identifying and remediating the sources of continuing degradation is a high 

priority in restoring the environmental health of the wetland complex. 

Deer abundance appears to have suppressed woody 

regeneration in Canaan Valley following logging in the early 

1900s and the livestock grazing in the mid- to late-1900s. 

Observations from deer exclosures in Canaan Valley show a 

marked increase in number, height, and diversity of woody 

stems inside the exclosure compared with similar habitat outside 

the exclosures (USFWS 2006a). Recent observations from a 

forest inventory study indicate a lack of seedling hardwoods 

developing in the refuge forest understory. For example only 

5% of inventoried northern hardwood and cherry forest plots 

had greater than the necessary number of regenerating stems 

per plot to be considered to have adequate small advanced 

reproduction (USFWS 2006a). 

Studies of deer herbivory of Jacobs’s ladder, a priority 

conservation plant species (G3-globally vulnerable), show that 

browse impacts can be significant. Flaherty (2006) found some 

Jacob’s ladder with up to 69% of flowering stems browsed on the 

refuge. Browse rates this high, if continued over many years, 

could limit natural reproduction and the expansion or even 

replacement of plants within a population. Deer herbivory, when 

browse pressure is high, can alter the growth, reproduction 

and ultimately survival of plants within a specific population 

(Alverson and Waller 1997, Cote et. al 2004). The browse 

pressure that the deer population exerts in Canaan Valley may 

threaten the reproduction and persistence of sensitive plant species and the 

processes of natural succession and woody encroachment. 

Literature suggests that high deer densities impact woody regeneration in 

central Appalachian hardwood forests. Altered species composition and reduced 

diversity of woody and herbaceous plant species were found at densities over 

20 deer per square mile (deCalesta 1994). Locally, deer were found to impact 

balsam fir regeneration in Canaan Valley (Michael 1992b). Deer densities based 

on number of bucks killed per square mile differ and range from 17 to over 30 

on refuge lands between 2002 and 2006 (WVDNR, USFWS unpublished data). 

Surveys conducted in the Timberline Homeowners development by the WVDNR 

estimated 46 deer per square mile in 2003 and 59 deer per square mile in 2004. 

Whitetail deer

Mary Konchar
3-40 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Current management of deer in Tucker County targets a density of 25-30 per 

square mile (Taylor 2009). Refuge observations and forest inventory data suggest 

that current deer densities are affecting balsam fir survival and impacting forest 

understory development. Managing the deer population to maintain species 

diversity and natural processes is an integral component of maintaining the 

health of the wetland complex.

Strategies 

In addition to alternative A Objective 1.1: 

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Identify locations where existing railroad grades, road grades, and trails 

have altered natural hydrologic processes such as surface and sub-surface 

water flow, evaluate those sites where remediation would benefit the wetland 

complex, and prioritize these sites for remediation. Methods would include but 

are not limited to the placement of culverts and permeable fill to restore flow 

through developed grades and trails, breaching roads, trails and rail grades 

blocking flow, recontouring and filling deeply incised areas. 

■ As part of the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) process, develop individual, 

site specific restoration plans that would maintain and/or improve the integrity 

of the wetland complex.

Within 3 to 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Remediate, where appropriate, identified impacted areas so that natural 

processes are restored and soil erosion is reduced. Incorporate prescriptions 

and implementation strategies in HMP and Annual HMP as appropriate.

■ Identify appropriate ecological integrity index metrics that measure both 

the intrinsic value of the wetland complex as well as the wildlife species that 

depend on these habitats. Perform initial measurements within palustrine 

and riparian communities. Facilitate partnerships and research to guide the 

development of the index and monitoring metrics and improve our knowledge 

and understanding of the wetland complex. 

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval:

■ Evaluate effectiveness of the monitoring protocol and integrity index, and 

determine appropriate time interval for continued long-term monitoring. 

■ Within 10 to 15 years of CCP approval:

■ Continue long term monitoring of integrity index metrics, implementing 

changes as appropriate to adapt to new information and monitoring results.

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Permit and encourage deer hunting, particularly for does, on refuge land with a 

goal to maintain a population no greater than the ecological carrying capacity 

of the landscape. See goal 4, Objective 4.1, for specific strategies on managing 

the refuge’s deer population.

■ Work with the WVDNR and surrounding land owners to encourage increased 

deer harvest, particularly for does, on lands adjacent to the refuge. See goal 4, 

Objective 4.1, for more details.
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-41

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

■ Conduct baseline inventory and monitoring projects in coordination with state 

and regional wetland inventory and research initiatives. Projects may include 

amphibian nesting and anuran breeding surveys, and dragonfly inventories.

■ Conduct annual deer herd surveys for density estimation. 

Manage and protect 132 acres of wetland conifer forest and woodland to 

perpetuate their associated flora and fauna, prevent inundation by beaver activity 

over 10% of the land area of these communities for greater than 2 years, and 

conduct restoration activities where practical to ensure regeneration, natural 

succession, and persistence of these communities. Benefiting species of concern 

include balsam fir, Blackburnian warbler, Canada warbler, and Indiana bat.

Rationale

A small portion of refuge wetlands are currently forested with red spruce, 

eastern hemlock, balsam fir, and associated species, compared to the reports 

from the late 1800s of the extensive red spruce forests throughout the valley. 

Recent modeling efforts conducted in collaboration with the multi-agency high 

elevation conifer work group indicate that Canaan Valley likely supported the 

greatest extent of wetland conifer forests in the state prior to logging activities. 

Today 2%, or 132 acres, of the refuge wetlands are coniferous forest. Red spruce, 

balsam fir, and Eastern hemlock are the dominant species in this forest type. 

Red maple, black ash, serviceberry, black cherry, yellow birch and mountain 

ash are co-dominants. These forests occur on low lying wetland sections of the 

refuge’s Freeland and Cortland Tracts, along the major riparian corridors such 

as the Blackwater River through Middle Ridge and in isolated low-lying seep and 

riparian areas throughout the Main Tract, which is the 9,176-acre tract of land in 

the northern part of the refuge.

The spruce-fir swamp communities are rare within the state, region, and 

worldwide. NatureServe lists the five conifer swamp associations occurring in 

Canaan Valley as S1-S2 (vulnerable to highly vulnerable to extirpation in the 

state) and G1-G3 (somewhat to highly vulnerable to extirpation globally). A 

survey of plant communities in the Allegheny Mountain Section of the Central 

Appalachians listed Canaan’s conifer swamps as rare because of the limited 

distribution of wetlands within the region and the presence in Canaan’s wetlands 

of regionally rare plants (Fortney et al. 2005). Community types recognized by 

the WVCAP associated with these wetlands (floodplain forests and swamps, 

high Allegheny swamp) are listed as high to very high conservation priorities 

(WVDNR 2006). For example, balsam fir, a dominant canopy species in nearly 

20 acres of forested wetlands, is a state species of concern and is nearing the 

southern extent of its distribution in Canaan Valley.

The conifer swamps harbor many wildlife species considered by the state as 

“Species in the Greatest Need of Conservation” and by PIF as priority migratory 

bird species for BCR 28. These species include Canada warbler, Blackburnian 

warbler, and mammals such as southern watershrew, bog lemming, Appalachian 

cottontail, and possibly the federally endangered Indiana bat (PIF 2003, Rich, 

T.D. et al. 2004, WVDNR 2006). 

The known threats to the conifer swamps are invasive insect pests, invasive 

exotic plants, an unchecked beaver population, an abundant white-tail deer 

population, and atmospheric deposition. A narrow ecological niche for balsam fir 

wetland communities and the restricted range of red spruce and balsam fir to 

the high elevations in the Central Appalachians also limit the conifer swamps. 

Objective 1.2 (Forested 

Wetlands)
3-42 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

The threats from 

and management 

strategies for 

invasive plants and 

deer browse pressure 

are addressed in 

Objective 1.1. 

Exotic pest control 

is an important 

management action 

to perpetuate the 

conifer swamp 

communities. 

Balsam and hemlock 

woolly adelgid are 

immediate and 

severe threats to 

the balsam fir and 

hemlock components, respectively, of the forested wetlands. Since its arrival 

in Canaan Valley in the mid-1990s, balsam woolly adelgid has infested all 

balsam stands, resulting in a decline in the number of live balsam firs, killing 

approximately 30% of the mature balsams between 1995 and 2005, and limiting 

reproduction and regeneration. Because of the limited distribution of balsam fir 

in the state, apparent complete adelgid infestation of fir throughout the state, 

and lack of regeneration, management concern for balsam fir communities has 

increased.

Hemlock woolly adelgid is also an immediate and severe threat to the hemlock 

component of the forested wetlands. Hemlock woolly adelgid arrived in Canaan 

Valley in the early 2000s, but appears to be moving slowly through the hemlock 

population. Little mortality from hemlock woolly adelgid is known from Canaan. 

No effective treatments for these pests in native, dispersed wetland stands are 

known. Encouraging the refuge to serve as an experimental control site or using 

approved biological, chemical, or mechanical control methods for the adelgid helps 

promote the persistence of two important components of the wetland conifer 

swamps.

In addition to the impacts of the balsam and hemlock woolly adelgids, deer 

browsing eliminates many of the naturally regenerating balsam and hemlock 

seedlings. Reducing deer browse in Canaan Valley helps ensure the regeneration 

of balsam, hemlock, and their associated forested wetland species. Planting 

balsam seedlings grown from seeds collected in Canaan Valley and grown in 

nurseries maintains an important component of the conifer swamp communities 

and maintains the unique local genotype of this species. Deer exclosures help 

protect natural and planted seedlings within existing and historic balsam 

fir stands. Without active management to replace seedling presence, balsam 

communities will develop into even-aged stands, highly susceptible to adelgid 

infestation without younger trees to replace them. Many stands on the refuge 

suffering from adelgid infestation have become highly susceptible to wind-throw 

events. This opens the canopy and permits new seedling growth of typically 

browse resistant woody species. Without seedling replacement and understory 

establishment through planting efforts, a dramatic shift in the wetland forested 

community and loss of the balsam fir component will likely result. 

American black duck

Steve Maslowski/USFWS
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-43

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Restoration efforts for areas which are currently forested and areas which were 

historically forested but have not regrown since the historic logging and fires 

will be evaluated during the HMP process for management actions. Locations 

of existing conifer forest will be priority sites for restoration planting to increase 

the areal extent of and connectivity between patches. Potential restoration sites 

for conifer forest are identified on Map 3-4 and include both upland and wetland 

sites. Identified areas on the Map generally indicate locations within which the 

refuge will consider conducting conifer forest restoration management actions. 

Much of the wetland habitat which was formerly conifer/mixed hardwood swamp 

forest historically, likely could not support a self sustaining forest at this time. 

Fires and logging activity followed by years of grazing in some areas have 

created conditions not suitable for natural tree succession. We will consider site 

suitability, ecological context and practicality measures while making the decision 

for locations of restoration actions. 

Beaver activity and the flooding of low lying areas is a natural and important 

disturbance process in Canaan Valley. The natural landscape mosaic of flooded 

areas and old ponds in various stages of succession maintains a diversity of plant 

communities unique to Canaan Valley and provides niches for several uncommon 

plant species. With few natural predators, however, the beaver population 

threatens sensitive plant communities with prolonged inundation. Bottomland 

forested communities, especially balsam fir stands, are particularly vulnerable 

due to their limited distribution and have experienced a 40% reduction in area 

between 1975 and 1997 (Fortney and Rentch 2003). Limited and regulated 

trapping of beaver ensures the protection of targeted wetland plant communities 

and species of concern (Bonner 2005). The refuge initiated a beaver management 

program through the development of a furbearer management plan and 

environmental assessment, approved in 2003. Beaver management is aimed 

at reducing the threat of inundation of rare plant communities by proactively 

trapping through a special use permit issued by the refuge.

Tree chewed by beaver

Ken Sturm/USFWS
3-44 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Balsam fir is singled out in this objective as a species of concern because of its 

rarity in the state (it is on the southern edge of its distribution), and because of 

the diversity of threats impacting the population’s persistence in Canaan Valley. 

Balsam woolly adelgid causes mortality of mature trees, limiting reproduction 

and regeneration. Deer browsing eliminates many of the naturally regenerating 

balsam seedlings. Perpetuating this species in Canaan Valley protects an 

important component of the most vulnerable conifer swamp communities and 

maintains the unique local genotype of this species. Current partnerships have 

successfully funded the collection and propagation of local balsam fir stock for 

restoration purposes on the refuge through a combination of volunteer support, 

staff time, grants, and limited station funds. Restoration work to conserve 

balsam fir as a species and as part of a rare plant community will continue to be 

an emphasis on refuge lands. Future restoration work may require additional 

funding emphasis from the refuge if balsam fir resumes a precipitous decline as 

was seen in the early 2000’s.

The Indiana bat is a federally listed endangered species and a trust resource 

of the Service. Primary foraging habitats include wetland and riparian areas, 

bottomland forests and edge habitats. Roost trees are typically in wooded 

wetlands, bottomland and floodplain forests, as well as upland habitats. 

Habitat loss and degradation, overutilization for scientific purposes, disease 

and predation, environmental contaminants, and the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms for summer habitat threaten the population viability of 

the Indiana bat across its range. The Indiana Bat Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 

2007a) calls for the conservation and management of hibernacula and adjacent 

lands, summer habitat, and winter populations, for the monitoring of populations 

on federal lands, and for the development of public outreach and information 

programs (Recovery Actions 1, 2, and 4). If Indiana bats are using the refuge 

for foraging and roosting, then protecting, maintaining, and improving habitat 

quality on the refuge would contribute to the viability of the species and its 

recovery. The conservation of this endangered species is now more important 

than ever as white nose syndrome spreads across the range of the Indiana bat. 

Acoustical recordings from 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2008 suggest Indiana bats are 

using riparian corridors and beaver ponds on the refuge for summer foraging 

habitat. Mist-netting provides visual confirmation of their presence, reproductive 

information, the types of refuge habitats used, and the seasons they are using 

the refuge habitats. Summer use indicates a potential for maternity colonies to 

be located on or near the refuge. As a key stage in the life cycle of the species, it 

is imperative to know the location of maternity colonies and protect them from 

disturbance. Radio telemetry of lactating or recently lactating female bats found 

on the refuge will define the habitats and locations that are important for this 

endangered species.

Gathering more information about use of the refuge by this endangered species 

will allow more informed management decisions and ensure the protection and 

improvement of habitats used as roost or maternity colonies. 

Strategies 

In addition to alternative A, Objective 1.2:

Within 0 to 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Identify, map, and prioritize communities and locations where no more than 

10% loss of forested wetland plant communities from inundation by beaver 

activity will be tolerated. 
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-45

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

■ Survey for Indiana bat presence and habitat use using mist nets and acoustic 

monitoring equipment along 90% of riparian and wetland communities and 

determine appropriate conservation and management actions.

■ Survey for Indiana bat presence and habitat use using mist nets and acoustic 

monitoring equipment in upland forested habitats, particularly near potential 

roosting areas, and determine appropriate conservation and management 

actions. 

■ Contact agency partners and other organizations to find training to develop 

expertise within refuge biological staff to operate acoustical monitoring 

devices, conduct mist net surveys, correctly identify bat species by sound and 

sight, and receive the appropriate permits for handling the species. 

■ Determine summer roosting and foraging locations in Canaan Valley using 

radio telemetry of Indiana bats captured in mist nets. 

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval:

■ Assess the quality and extent of any occupied Indiana bat habitat and 

implement forest management techniques to improve the quality of at least 

20% of potential habitat. This may include creating areas of standing dead 

hardwood trees near wetland and riparian habitat by selective girdling 

operations.

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Conduct beaver pond use and development surveys focused in high priority 

locations to determine potential of community loss through beaver activity.

■ Following this draft CCP/EA and a furbearer management plan, issue special 

use permits for people to trap beaver in order to prevent prolonged inundation 

of high priority locations as directed by refuge staff. Beaver trapping will 

be strictly a management action tied directly to the protection of rare 

plant communities and refuge infrastructure as outlined in the furbearer 

management plan.

■ Perpetuate conifer wetland forest by working with partners to propagate and 

plant Canaan Valley balsam fir and red spruce within the extent of current and 

historical ranges. 

■ Work with partners to evaluate and implement methods for controlling balsam 

woolly adelgid.

■ Construct deer exclosures when necessary to protect balsam seedlings from 

deer browsing.

Manage and protect 5,060 acres of wet shrublands and herbaceous wetlands to 

perpetuate their associated flora and fauna, prevent inundation by beaver activity 

over 10% of the land area of these communities for greater than 2 years, and 

conduct restoration activities where practical to ensure regeneration, natural 

succession, and persistence of these communities. Benefiting species of concern 

include alder flycatcher, American woodcock, pink-edged sulfur butterfly and 

many herbaceous wetland plant species.

Objective 1.3: (Shrub and 

Herbaceous Wetlands)
3-46 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Rationale

Like the forested wetlands discussed in Objective 1.2, the shrub and herbaceous 

wetlands are both maintained over time by and susceptible to inundation by 

beaver activity. Beaver activity and the flooding of low lying areas is a natural 

and important disturbance process in Canaan Valley. The natural landscape 

mosaic of flooded areas and old ponds in various stages of succession maintains 

a diversity of plant communities unique to Canaan Valley and provides niches for 

several uncommon plant species. With few natural predators, however, the beaver 

population threatens sensitive plant communities with prolonged inundation. 

Limited and regulated trapping of beaver ensures the protection of targeted 

wetland plant communities and species of concern (Bonner 2005).

See also rationale for alternative B, Objective 1.2.

Strategies

In addition to alternative A, Objective 1.1:

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Identify, map, and prioritize communities and locations where no more than 

10% loss of shrub/herbaceous wetlands from inundation by beaver activity will 

be tolerated. 

■ Conduct bimonthly acoustical monitoring surveys (May-September) along 

streams and beaver ponds to detect presence of Indiana bats. 

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Plant alder seedlings to increase patch size and management capability of 

alder/tall wetland shrub habitat.

Manage and protect 55 miles of stream and a dynamic beaver pond system 

(currently 85 acres) for cold water fish species and breeding and foraging 

migratory birds by ensuring adequate riparian cover, limiting anthropogenic 

disturbance, and allowing the process of beaver pond formation and succession to 

occur naturally. Benefiting species include brook trout, redside dace, American 

black duck, American bittern, wood duck, and southern water shrew.

Rationale

Streams, rivers, beaver ponds, and other open water bodies in Canaan Valley 

provide habitat for species of concern such as brook trout, redside dace, black 

ducks, wood ducks, and American bitterns. High quality wetland and cold water 

riparian habitat is scarce and frequently degraded in the state and in the High 

Allegheny Plateau region of the Central Appalachians. Degraded riparian habitat 

in West Virginia is noted to be the second greatest environmental stressor in 

the state and within the Mid-Atlantic highlands overall. West Virginia has a 

low percentage of wetland acres and has lost an estimated 24-57% of historical 

wetland communities from development and alteration (WVDNR 2006). Wetlands 

are considered uncommon and are noted as extremely important for wetland 

dependant plant and wildlife communities (WVDNR 2006, Tiner 1996). As the 

largest wetland in the state with the headwater tributaries to the Blackwater 

River, Canaan Valley is an important resource for maintaining open waterdependent species. 

Objective 1.4: (Open 

Water / Aquatic)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-47

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Brook trout are an indicator species for the quality of the cold water fisheries 

in the region. Although once abundant, channelizing and impounding of 

streams, logging that removed shade and cover from streamsides, soil erosion, 

sedimentation, acid mine drainage, and competition from non-native fish has led 

to the extirpation of brook trout in 25% of the streams in its historic range in 

West Virginia. The remaining population is classified as “Greatly Reduced” with 

85% of brook trout existing in highly fragmented populations lacking connectivity 

to other suitable or occupied stream segments (Hudy et al. 2005). Redside 

dace, a species with similar habitat requirements that is rare in the state, likely 

faces similar reductions in population size and connectivity as a result of habitat 

fragmentation and degradation. This species was reportedly common in Canaan 

Valley in the 1940s and 1950s but is currently rare with documented population 

declines since 1978 (Cincotta et. al 2002). 

The refuge was established in part to protect the valley’s cold water habitats and 

their associated ecological systems. One of the founding authorities (Emergency 

Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. 3901-3932), the final EIS (USFWS 

1979), and final EA (USFWS 1994a) for the establishment of the refuge, point 

to the conservation of wetlands, protection of water quality, and preservation of 

cold water fisheries as a primary focus for refuge management. The continued 

degradation of habitat in the region and subsequent fragmentation of the brook 

trout populations warrants an ongoing focus in refuge management for protecting 

cold water habitats. The Service, Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture, and the 

WVDNR recognize the importance of this focus and similarly emphasize the 

protection, restoration, and maintenance for populations and habitats of brook 

trout and other aquatic species of concern (Moss et al. 2007, EBTJV 2007, and 

WVDNR 2006). 

There are eight tributaries either entirely or partially on the refuge which have 

current or historical records for brook trout. Those streams or sections of stream 

outside of refuge boundaries can be focus areas for joint habitat management 

projects to protect water quality and the riparian corridor. Areas on the refuge 

which have historic records for brook trout should be evaluated for water quality 

and the associated riparian forest cover for possible management actions. 

Increasing forest cover of riparian corridors protects water quality for aquatic 

species such as brook trout and redside dace by shading streams (slowing 

heat gain), reducing sedimentation, and providing woody debris for habitat 

structure. A 100 meter forested or tall shrubland buffer on each side of 

perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams exceeds the West Virginia DEP’s 

recommended 30 meter buffer for erosion control and sedimentation and provides 

the shading, stabilization, and woody debris inputs that benefit cold water fish 

habitat (WVDOF 2001, EBTJV 2005). A forested buffer, when greater than 

90% canopy closure and at least 25m wide on each side of the stream, allows the 

stream to retain normal stream temperature behavior with minimal daily and 

seasonal temperature fluctuations (Wilkerson et al. 2005). Wider riparian forest 

corridor widths support greater numbers of breeding birds, especially those 

considered area-sensitive species (Peak and Thompson 2006, Fischer 2000). 

Using the 100 meter width will ensure that riparian corridors protect aquatic 

habitats and improve migratory bird habitat. Limiting gaps in canopy cover 

along a stream to less than 100 meters allows the stream to recover to near 

normal temperature behavior if the stream subsequently flows through closed 

canopy forest (Wilkerson et al. 2005). 

Sedimentation of streams from upland soil erosion and disturbance inhibits 

the development of brook trout eggs and reduces reproductive success. Small 

amounts (<1%) of fine sediment (<0.063mm) in the spawning bed substrate can 
3-48 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

negatively impact brook trout recruitment in Appalachian headwater streams 

(Hartman and Hakala 2006). Rehabilitating the extensive logging roads, 

skid trails, railroad grades, and currently degraded streams can decrease 

sedimentation and allow for greater reproductive success and potential new 

restored habitat for brook trout and redside dace. The restoration of degraded 

wetland and upland areas is addressed in Objective 1.1.

Improving riparian forest cover also provides habitat for 

a diversity of other wildlife species including migratory 

birds, amphibians, and mammals. Studies indicate that 

increasing riparian area increases avian species richness 

(Stauffer and Best 1980; Triquet, McPeek, and McComb 

1990; Keller, Robbins and Hatfield 1993; Kilgo et al. 1998) 

and that narrow buffer zones are less likely to contribute 

to high water quality goals (Houlahan and Findlay 2004). 

Semlitsch (1998) recommended riparian buffer strips 

greater than 165 meters to maintain viable populations and 

communities of Ambysomatid (mole) salamanders and to 

maintain the connection between wetlands and terrestrial 

habitats to preserve the biodiversity of remaining wetlands. 

The range of recommended widths of riparian habitat 

for birds is broad. Fischer and Fischenich (2000) cite 

recommendations that range from 15 meters for stopover 

use during migration, to 100 meters to maintain nesting 

habitat for area sensitive species of birds. Kilgo et al. (1998) 

recommended the width of bottomland hardwood forest 

to be at least 500 meters to maintain a complete avian 

community.

American black ducks, American bitterns, wood ducks, 

and other waterfowl use the headwater wetlands and 

impounded water of beaver ponds in Canaan Valley 

during migration and the breeding season. The scarcity of 

suitable habitat within the state and range-wide population 

declines places black ducks and bitterns on the state 

species of concern list. Wetland habitats are noted as a high 

conservation priority in the WVCAP and provide habitat 

for a large number of species listed as state conservation 

priorities. As the largest wetland in the state harboring 

these sensitive species, the refuge can play an important 

role in the protection and management of naturally 

functioning open water wetland habitats. Open water habitat is relatively rare 

and isolated in the valley, being formed by beaver activity and to a lesser extent 

historical railroad and road grades impounding water flow. Acreage of pond 

habitat changes over time as beaver populations fluctuate. 

In addition to the primary refuge purpose directing wetland conservation 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. 3901-3932), the final EA 

(USFWS 1994a) prepared prior to land acquisition lists as an objective providing 

and developing habitat for waterfowl consistent with preservation of existing 

ecosystems. Protecting the streams and the open water habitat created by beaver 

ponds for breeding and migratory waterfowl on the refuge continues to be a high 

priority, as it provides habitat otherwise scarce in the region. Actively creating 

Glad Run wetlands

Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-49

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

impoundments to further maximize species productivity, however, is precluded by 

the importance of protecting the unique wetland system that is maintained by the 

naturally occurring and succeeding beaver ponds. The formation of new beaver 

ponds, desirable for the creation of waterbird habitat, may directly conflict with 

other priorities of the refuge and the persistence of sensitive plant communities. 

The protection of rare plant communities (forested wetlands) from beaver pond 

inundation is addressed Objective 1.2. 

Protecting open water habitats is important for the variety of wildlife and plant 

communities that rely on these limited habitats on the refuge. Disturbance 

and harassment of breeding waterbirds can be an important stressor affecting 

their foraging behavior and reproductive success. Due to the limited quantity of 

pond habitat on the refuge, these areas could have a disproportional amount of 

disturbance associated with fishing or other recreational activities. 

Disturbance to waterfowl from recreational fishing access is of particular concern 

because fishing is permitted year-round in West Virginia. Humans walking offtrail have been shown to cause greater disturbance (greater area of influence, 

flush distance and distance moved) to wildlife than walking within trail corridors 

(Miller et al. 2001). Predictability of disturbance (on trail vs. off trail) has been 

cited as a major factor in impacts to wildlife. Walking off trail is considered less 

predictable to wildlife and typically more disruptive (Trails and Wildlife Task 

Force 1998, Miller et al. 2001, Knight and Cole 1991). Requiring anglers to use 

designated public use trails to access fishing areas would help limit this type 

of disturbance. Nonetheless, once anglers access pond habitats, disturbance of 

wildlife associated with those sites is likely. By providing suitable habitat with 

minimal disturbance, the refuge can support and enhance the population viability 

of black ducks, bitterns, and other waterfowl species as well as protecting other 

wildlife species associated with aquatic habitats on the refuge.

Strategies

In addition to alternative A, Objective 1.3:

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Survey stream and river segments to document locations of existing 

populations of brook trout and redside dace. We will focus on these areas for 

riparian corridor restoration.

■ Identify riparian corridors and springs with less than 90% forest cover within 

a 100 meter and 500 meter buffer of the stream or spring. Prioritize locations 

for reestablishing forest within 100 meters of the stream and improving forest 

cover within 500 meters of the stream, with highest priority given to stream 

reaches with less than 50% forest cover for greater than 100m along the 

stream. 

■ Identify effective management techniques for enhancing brook trout 

populations and develop a management plan for implementing the strategies. 

Strategies may include stocking native (local genotype) brook trout, removing 

brown trout from headwater tributaries and seeps, and in-stream habitat 

restoration.
3-50 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Within 3 to 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Begin riparian restoration to increase canopy cover and corridor width by 

planting native tree and tall shrub species, using local seed source when 

possible, and allowing the regeneration through natural succession of woody 

species.

■ Evaluate need and feasibility of translocating redside dace from elsewhere in 

the state to suitable locations within the refuge, and if translocation is deemed 

feasible, establish timeline for reintroduction

■ Implement cold water fisheries restoration plan.

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Conduct priority wildlife monitoring activities to track wildlife population 

trends associated with aquatic resources.

■ Work with partners and adjacent land owners to improve riparian cover within 

the Canaan Valley watershed.

Establish a Research Natural Area (RNA) to participate in the national effort 

to preserve examples of major wetland ecosystem types; to provide research 

and educational opportunities for scientists and others in the observation, study, 

and monitoring of the environment; and to contribute to the national effort to 

preserve a full range of genetic and behavioral diversity for native plants and 

animals.

Rationale

RNAs exist to fulfill three objectives, outlined in the Refuge Manual (8 RM 

10) as follows: first, to participate in the national effort to preserve adequate 

examples of all major ecosystem types or other outstanding physical or 

biological phenomena; second, to provide research and educational opportunities 

for scientists and others in the observation, study, and monitoring of the 

environment; and third, to contribute to the national effort to preserve a full 

range of genetic and behavioral diversity for native plants and animals, including 

endangered or threatened species. 

Federal land management agencies have developed a national system of RNAs 

since 1927. The RNA designation is an administrative designation to establish 

areas on which natural features and processes are preserved with minimal 

human intervention for research and education purposes. The established refuge 

regulations (8 RM 10) provide the only protection for these areas and there are 

no separate federal regulations which apply. 

In this alternative we would designate a portion of the refuge’s central wetland 

complex to be included in the Research Natural Areas system. The area under 

consideration is the core wetland complex and consists of several different distinct 

community types including palustrine marsh, beaver influenced wetlands, 

wetland shrub swamp and peatland. Although much of the wetland on the refuge 

falls into these general plant community categories, this central wetland area 

was chosen for nomination due to its size, contiguous habitat and the ability to 

delineate boundaries mostly based on natural features and topography. For 

the purposes of this discussion we will call this area the Blackwater Research 

Natural Area (BRNA).

Objective 1.5: (Research 

Natural Area)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-51

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

The BRNA would consist of 754 acres and would be bounded generally by the 

western edge of the wetland complex along the Blackwater River to the south 

and west, Middle Ridge to the East and a portion of Glade Run to the north 

(see map E-1). It is approximately 97% wetland and 3% upland habitat. Plant 

communities within the BRNA include: 227 acres of herbaceous wetland, 470 

acres of shrub wetland and 8 acres of open water/aquatic habitat. A limited 

number of upland habitat type acres are included in the BRNA for practical 

purposes. These acres are physically located within the larger wetland complex 

and they contribute to making the BRNA a more manageable unit. 

Of the wetland types, the shrub wetland communities are broken out to include 

277 acres of blueberry, 108 acres of St John’s wort, four acres of speckled alder, 

58 acres of viburnum, 23 acres of black chokeberry, and one acre of spirea tall 

shrub thicket. Most of the shrubland habitat exists as either narrow bands (alder) 

or scattered shrubs within a saturated moss-dominated or emergent wetland. 

Therefore the habitat suitability for hunted species such as American woodcock is 

low and the designation will have little effect on the hunter opportunity for game 

species. 

RNAs may be categorized according to biological and physical features, 

management criteria and classification systems. The BRNA supports many 

of the qualifications for biological features. As a component of the largest 

wetland complex in the state of West Virginia as well as containing the largest 

contiguous peatland and shrub swamp plant communities, it meets the criteria 

of an ecological community that illustrates characteristics of a physiographic 

province or biome. The BRNA exhibits a prime example of high elevation/Central 

Appalachian wetland plant communities.

The cool, moist climate of the valley has maintained favorable growing conditions 

for northern plant species following the last glaciation. Balsam fir represents one 

of 109 plant species that have distinctly northern ranges but are able to persist 

in the valley. Twenty-three of these species and varieties have been reported 

from five or fewer locations in West Virginia. The area is mixed with northernaffiliated plant species as well as several species considered endemic to the 

Central Appalachians and some southern high elevation species reaching their 

northern-most extent Botanists have recorded 73 state species of concern in 

Canaan Valley. Twenty-eight species are listed as critically imperiled (S1) by the 

WVDNR Natural Heritage Program. NatureServe and the network of Natural 

Heritage programs rank four species (Appalachian blue violet, glade spurge, 

Appalachian oak fern, and Jacob’s ladder) as globally vulnerable (G3). These facts 

meet the biological criteria established for RNAs including allowing relic flora 

to persist from earlier periods, and a habitat which supports a vanishing, rare or 

restricted species.

Much of the area under consideration was subject to community altering 

disturbances from the late 1800s through the late 1990s. Logging, fires, grazing 

and unrestricted off-road vehicle use caused great impacts to the wetland 

complex of the proposed BRNA. However, following refuge acquisition and 

protection, much of the wetland plant communities have begun the slow process 

of natural restoration and succession. Because of this area’s disruptive past and 

subsequent protection, the BRNA meets the criteria for an ecological community 

significantly illustrating the process of succession and restoration.
3-52 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

The proposal to designate the BRNA is consistent with the establishing 

legislation for the Canaan Valley refuge, as detailed in the Emergency Wetland 

Protection Act (1986). Establishing the core wetland complex as an RNA would 

elevate the significance of the area for research and educational opportunities 

supported by the refuge and identified in founding documents (USFWS 1979, 

USFWS 1994a). The establishment of the BRNA would help fulfill a stated 

purpose of the refuge by “insuring the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley 

and the continued availability of its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources 

to the citizens of the United States” (USFWS 1979). Additionally the Station 

Management Plan (USFWS 1994c) notes that “Canaan Valley is by far the 

largest of the relict boreal ecosystems found in the high elevations of the central 

and southern Appalachian Mountains...Canaan Valley presents an outstanding 

scientific opportunity by virtue of its size, diversity and central location for 

the establishment of a research/educational center for study of these unique 

ecosystems.” The BRNA would be used to fulfill the development of wetland 

ecological integrity indices and serve as a reference area. It would be promoted 

widely to explore long term research and monitoring of climate change, wetland 

succession and other aspects of wetland ecology and biology. The establishment 

of the BRNA would help achieve the goals stated in these founding documents for 

the refuge.

Upon designation a site specific natural area management plan would be written 

for the BRNA, concurrent with the refuge HMP. The RNA plan will detail use 

objectives and restrictions, management objectives and maintenance details, and 

protection objectives and practices. Generally we expect the BRNA to meet all 

the objectives outlined in the Refuge Manual for protection, access, structures 

and management. There are possible hydrologic restoration actions which could 

occur within the proposed BRNA, however these would require temporary 

actions aimed at preventing degradation of the wetland and would therefore not 

violate the objectives for management of RNAs. 

The Refuge Manual states that a RNA “must be reasonably protected from any 

influence that could alter or disrupt the characteristic phenomena for which 

the area was established.” Therefore, if predator removal or other disruption 

of the community processes has created conditions under which certain species 

multiply beyond normal limits and pose a disruptive threat, especially to 

vegetation, refuge management can include controlling these populations. For 

this reason we will continue to permit hunting for white-tailed deer and beaver 

trapping as population management tools. High deer densities have impacted 

natural regeneration, succession and likely distribution and abundance of plant 

species and communities in Canaan Valley. Allowing deer hunting within the 

BRNA would be required to fulfill the objectives for which the RNA would be 

established, in other words, to protect the wetland plant communities and provide 

exemplary opportunities for research and education. Allowing beaver trapping 

also fulfills the objectives for which the RNA would be established by protecting 

plant communities, especially the bottomland forest communities. Other 

consumptive and non-consumptive recreation would be restricted as is consistent 

with RNA guidance in the Service Refuge Manual (8RM10).

Strategies

In addition to strategies mentioned in alternative B, Objective 1.1 (where 

appropriate relative to the management policy for RNAs) 

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Complete a site specific management plan for the Blackwater Research 

Natural Area.

■ Post boundaries as consistent with RNA policy (8RM10).
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-53

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Conduct outreach to research agencies and institutions to develop an active 

program for wetland related research activities within the BRNA.

■ Permit deer hunting as outlined in the refuge Hunt Plan and EA.

■ Permit beaver trapping as outlined in the Furbearer Plan.

■ Use the BRNA as a focal area in which to conduct monitoring for wetland 

ecological integrity.

Perpetuate the ecological integrity of upland northern hardwood and northern 

hardwood-conifer forests to sustain native wildlife and plant communities, including 

species of conservation concern, for the development of late-successional forest 

characteristics, and to perpetuate the biological diversity and integrity of upland forest 

ecosystem.

Restore the 5,273 acres of northern hardwood forest to an unfragmented 

condition within and between refuge and adjacent lands (canopy cover greater 

than 80%, forest patches with a minimum distance of 600 m to non-forest edges, 

and maximum extent of forest acres) to maximize nesting and foraging habitat 

for forest interior migratory bird and other species of conservation concern. 

Benefiting species include scarlet tanager, black-throated blue warbler, wormeating warbler, Eastern wood peewee, black bear, bobcat, and fisher.

Rationale

In this alternative, we are proposing to maximize contiguous forest patches, 

with a target of greater than 7,400 acres. Important from a regional perspective; 

many migratory birds reach their 

abundance peaks in this region of 

the Central Appalachians. Managing 

and protecting contiguous forest will 

provide habitat for several species 

listed by the state as “species in 

the greatest need of conservation” 

including black-billed cuckoo, Cooper’s 

hawk and southern pygmy shrew 

(WVDNR 2006). Refuge forests 

provide breeding habitat for PIF 

Area 12 priority species such as 

scarlet tanager and Eastern wood 

pewee. Additionally many migrating 

birds which are also species of 

conservation concern in the Eastern 

and Northern Biomes utilize the 

refuge’s forested habitats. Examples 

include black-throated blue and 

Blackburnian warbler, both species of 

conservation concern in PIF BCR12 

(part of the Northern Forest Biome) 

that comprised 17% of all landbird 

captures between 1958 and 2006 at the 

Allegheny Front Migration Observatory; five miles east of the refuge boundary 

(Rich, T.D. et al. 2004, Bell, R.K. 2006). 

GOAL 2

Objective 2.1: (Northern 

Hardwood Forest)

Scarlet tanager

Steve Maslowski/USFWS
3-54 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

A block of forest at least 7,400 acres increases the probability of occurrence for 

several area-sensitive species and provides for the most sensitive species such as 

the black-throated blue warbler and scarlet tanager (Robbins et al. 1989; Betts 

et al. 2006). Reducing edge effects will improve and increase area-sensitive bird 

nesting habitat in refuge upland forests. Predation of bird nests decreases with 

increasing distance from the forest edge and has been documented to reach a 

minimum occurrence at 600 meters or greater from a forest edge (Wilcove 1985, 

Noss and Cooperrider 1994). As a surrogate for the distance from the edge at 

which forest interior is no longer affected by forest edge, forest patches would be 

maintained with a minimum radius of 600 meters to ensure high quality forest 

interior habitat. For this reason the refuge would strive to reduce fragmentation 

and prevent edge effects within a 600 meter radius of forest blocks.

The refuge proposes to manage 5,273 acres of the current 6,400 acres of 

northern hardwood forest for area sensitive species. While this is less than the 

minimum target patch size for these species, approximately one-third of this 

forest is contiguous with forested areas of public and private lands and therefore 

contributes to this goal with the surrounding forest at a landscape scale. Future 

acquisitions have the potential to bring refuge forest ownership to the 7,400 acre 

target. 

Achieving the minimum target patch size requires working with adjacent 

landowners and converting some early successional habitats to forest cover. Areas 

of early successional habitat that currently fragment forested habitat will be the 

focus for habitat conversion and will be detailed in the Habitat Management Plan. 

Partnerships to manage adjoining forest patches as contiguous forest with the 

refuge will increase the effective size of the upland forest in the Canaan Valley 

area. Continuity with adjacent forested habitat is important to allow movement 

corridors between other forested landscapes, particularly for area sensitive forest 

birds and far ranging mammal species. Larger forest blocks on a landscape level 

will help create resistance and resiliency to possible effects of climate change 

allowing the refuge to play a larger role in forest conservation in West Virginia.

Refuge forest habitat will be managed to maintain and improve existing forest 

habitat to attain the largest acreage forest patch while attempting to minimize 

the perimeter to area ratio and reduce irregularly shaped forest patches. 

Focusing on enlarging narrow forest segments and connecting core areas can 

increase population sizes of interior forest species and reduce the populations of 

edge species, which includes invasive species, in the core habitat area (Ewers and 

Didham 2007). Maintaining and improving the quality of forested habitat and 

reducing forest fragmentation on refuge property will aid in the conservation of 

wildlife tied to this habitat on adjacent lands and provide a link between forests 

on Cabin, Canaan, and Brown mountains to valley habitats in lower elevations. 

Logging of large tracts just prior to refuge acquisition in 2002 left sparse, and 

in some cases, less than 20% forest canopy cover (USFWS 2006a). This canopy 

cover is deficient when compared with old growth northern hardwood and 

beech-maple-basswood forests which ranges in cover from 75 to 97% percent 

(Tyrrell et al. 1998). Ensuring that the refuge forest cover is at least 70-80% 

provides continuity of habitat for interior forest-dependent species (DeGraaf et 

al. 1992). The past logging activities have also created a forest fragmented by 

logging roads and clearings (former pastures). Many studies have documented 

the biotic and abiotic changes relative to forest removal and edge creation within 

forested habitats (Davies-Colley et al. 2000, Marsh and Beckman 2004, Franklin 

and Forman 1987). Due to the large number of existing logging roads and 

recently logged forest on refuge lands, these biotic and abiotic effects could be 
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-55

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

negatively impacting a variety of terrestrial wildlife species, including amphibian 

populations. 

Old logging roads and clearings create narrow corridors of forest fragmentation 

throughout the core areas of refuge forested habitat, increasing the likelihood of 

incursion by non-native species into the forest and impacting breeding habitat for 

forest interior migratory birds (Watkins et al. 2003). Fragmentation as a result 

of road construction can decrease soil moisture and humidity, increase average 

soil temperatures and increase wind penetration as well as affect the predation 

and competition rates among forest dwelling species (Marsh and Beckman 2004). 

Salamander species such as red backed salamanders are known to be tolerant 

of disturbance and less sensitive to landscape scale disturbances such as logging 

road fragmentation (Gibbs 1998). 

Logging roads may also affect the predator density within a forested ecosystem. 

Current research is being conducted to evaluate the effect logging roads have 

on predators (snakes) in areas adjacent to occupied Cheat Mountain salamander 

habitat. Preliminary results from the refuge found no live snakes on Powderline 

ski trail (an old logging road) as compared to 69 at a Dolly Sods study site and 31 

at a Timberline resort study site (Bradshaw 2010). Results and recommendations 

from this study will be used to guide refuge decisions on management options for 

logging roads and trails on refuge land.

Restoration of old roads and skid trails will help reduce edge effects throughout 

the refuge’s upland forested habitat. Allowing old roads to regrow or actively 

restoring roads and clearings on the refuge can help prevent the spread of exotic 

plants to the interior forested landscape, reduce erosion, and protect aquatic 

resources (Watkins et al. 2003, Switalski et al. 2004). Improving continuity 

of habitat and reducing potential of invasive species spread will improve the 

biological integrity of this habitat. The refuge’s northern hardwood forest also 

serves as an important connection to the high elevation wetlands and headwater 

tributaries of the valley, and harbors unique forested seep communities.

Strategies 

In addition to alternative A, Objective 2.1:

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Identify and map forest patch sizes (inclusive of adjacent public and protected 

lands); locations of fragmentation including logging roads; percent canopy 

cover; and locations with less than a 600-meter radius, and prioritize locations 

for restoration. 

■ Identify local seedling source, and if needed, propagate local genotypes of 

forest species, to provide sufficient stock for replanting forest gaps. 

■ Identify and map logging roads where natural forest regeneration is being 

suppressed by exotic vegetation, soil compaction or other reasons. 

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval:

■ Plant tree seedlings to reduce the number of fragmented forest gaps by 50%. 

■ Obliterate, re-contour, and revegetate old logging roads identified as high 

priority sites for restoration.
3-56 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Within 10 to 15 years of CCP approval:

■ Conduct restoration actions to encourage forested habitat regeneration, 

which would reduce logging road fragmentation. Methods include but are not 

limited to planting logging roads with native tree and shrub species and road 

obliteration/re-contouring with heavy equipment.

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Allow forest succession to proceed to reforest recently logged areas such as 

Middle Ridge by reducing deer browse pressure and by planting with spruce 

and hardwood seedlings.

■ Conduct priority wildlife monitoring activities to track changes in focal species 

and WVCAP priorities over time as a result of management actions.

Restore structural and compositional diversity in the hardwood forest understory 

and mid-story (1-12 cm dbh size class) to provide nesting and foraging habitat for 

species of conservation concern such as black-throated blue and Canada warblers 

and maximize the persistence of herbaceous plant populations such as glade 

spurge and forest seep communities. Target structure and composition includes 

increasing the mid-story stem density, mid-story diversity index, and cover and 

diversity of herbaceous species.

Rationale

Recent forest inventory data (USFWS 2006) reveal a paucity of seedling and 

sapling-aged trees and shrub vegetation in the refuge’s northern hardwood forest 

understory. Diversity of shade-tolerant tree species in the understory was lower 

than that of the canopy. Lack of regeneration and subsequent understory forest 

structure and diversity means a diminished quality of habitat for migratory birds 

dependent on midstory structure for breeding, a forest less resilient to stochastic 

and catastrophic events, and reduced capacity to sustain itself over time. Many 

long distance migratory birds appear to rely more heavily on well developed, 

multi-layered forests than resident and short-distance migrants (DeGraaf et 

al. 1998). In Canaan, the lack of midstory woody species is likely due to intense 

browse pressure of white-tailed deer leading to the wide-spread growth of New 

York and hay-scented ferns. This interaction has been found in other northern 

hardwood forests. In Allegheny northern hardwoods, Horsley and Marquis 

(1983) found dense hay-scented fern cover prevented the establishment of most 

woody species. Species such as Rubus and yellow birch, which could penetrate the 

fern cover, were browsed by deer. In locations where Rubus was able to become 

established, fern cover decreased. 

Many declining forest bird species in BCR 28 are reliant upon forest habitat 

with dense understory development, historically caused by local disturbances. 

However, excessive deer browse and a lack of forest management have reduced 

the abundance of this important forest understory structure throughout the BCR 

(Rich, T.D. et al. 2004). These conditions are prevalent on the refuge as a recent 

forest inventory documented in 2006 (USFWS 2006a). The Canada warbler, a 

species of conservation concern for BCR 28, often is found in mature forested 

habitat with tree gaps allowing for the development of localized understory shrub 

and sapling development. In West Virginia, this species was more prevalent 

in forested habitat where individual trees were cut simulating natural treethrow (Maurer and Whitmore 1981). Abundant deer populations have been 

correlated with lower Canada warbler abundance indicating impacts of deer 

from the suppression and removal of forest understory vegetation (DeGraaf et. 

al 1991). Improved forest structure will also benefit other understory dependent 

Objective 2.2: (Northern 

Hardwood Forest 

Understory)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-57

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

migratory birds such as ovenbird, worm-eating warbler, black-throated blue 

warbler and mourning warbler.

Selective low-volume logging that mimics natural disturbances of a mature forest 

in approximately half acre patches has been associated with lower predation 

rates on successional and understory dependent species like indigo buntings. 

These temporary and scattered gaps create “edge” habitat in small patches that 

may not support large numbers or regular use of mammalian predators (Suarez 

et al. 1997). Additionally creating small tree gaps in forested habitat provides 

improved structure and food resources important for a variety of migratory birds 

(Noss and Cooperrider 1994, Rotenberry et al. 1995). Species of conservation 

concern reliant upon this type of habitat in BCR 28 include black-throated blue 

warbler, Canada warbler, Eastern wood peewee and worm-eating warbler. Other 

wildlife requiring understory seedling and sapling development such as small 

mammals and woodland salamanders will also benefit. Ensuring deer browse 

does not significantly impact woody species regeneration is essential in the 

development of this understory habitat type. 

Maintaining ecosystem functioning and natural processes includes managing 

for the diversity of understory flora. Herbaceous plants are indicators of forest 

health and condition (Keddy and Drummond 1996). High levels of browse over 

long periods of time from white-tailed deer is linked to local extirpation of forb 

species (Jenkins et al. 2007; Carson, et al. 2005; Augustine and Frelich 1998). 

Deer browse of native plants may also be linked to increased invasive plant 

presence, particularly garlic mustard, in otherwise diverse ecosystems. When 

combined with canopy impacting invasive forest pests such as hemlock wooly 

adelgid, deer were found to exacerbate the problem of invasive species in forested 

communities (Eschtruth and Battles 2009). 

Reducing browse pressure on browse-sensitive 

herbaceous plants will allow their persistence 

and perpetuate the natural diversity of flora as 

a component of an integral forest ecosystem. 

Glade spurge (S2G3) and the eastern rough 

sedge – wavy leaf moss sloping forested seep 

communities (S3G3) occur in the refuge’s 

northern hardwood forests and are considered 

vulnerable to extirpation, by the WVDNR and 

NatureServe. The persistence of these globally 

vulnerable conservation targets will benefit 

from the reduction of browse pressure. 

Exotic forest pests such as beech bark disease, 

maple anthracnose, Asian longhorn beetle, 

woolly adelgids, and emerald ash borer 

threaten the health of the refuge’s northern 

hardwood forests. Public education and 

outreach on the threats exotic pests pose to 

the forest and the role people play in bringing 

the pests to the area will assist in preventing 

or diminishing the introduction of new pests. 

Management responses to control exotic pests vary by species and adapt to the 

current scientific understanding of the species. As threats appear, investigating 

the latest, best management practices will ensure the most appropriate response. 

Fritillary butterfly on butterfly weed

Ken Sturm/USFWS
3-58 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Strategies

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Identify and map forest stands with high woody species diversity of seedlings 

and low midstory density. Target these areas for increased deer harvest and/or 

exclosures.

■ Locate forest seep communities and glade spurge populations and develop 

monitoring protocols to indicate the communities’ and species’ persistence.

■ Develop and implement a monitoring plan for presence of forest pests and 

respond to the threats as practicable with the best current management 

strategies available.

Within 3 to 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Develop a flexible outreach and education program to reduce potential threats 

of forest pests and limit visitor use as necessary to prevent the spread of these 

pests. 

■ Establish and monitor five deer exclosures with controls to increase woody 

species recruitment, to act as refugia for browse-sensitive herbaceous and 

woody species, and to demonstrate the severity of deer browse pressure on the 

forest ecosystem in Canaan. 

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval:

■ Monitor stem density and species richness of understory development 

management areas to determine effects of deer browse on regeneration. 

Within 10 to 15 years of CCP approval:

■ Improve habitat structure for refuge focal species through thinning and/or 

other stand improvement operations. Methods include, but are not limited to 

girdling operations, single tree or group selection cuts of up to one-half acre 

in size with cutting cycles of 15 to 20 years in order to maintain understory 

development.

■ Identify and prioritize even-aged stands for single tree fall disturbance to 

increase age class diversity.

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Work with partners (state, federal, and private communities) to manage 

deer densities on the refuge and surrounding lands in Canaan Valley that 

are compatible with objectives of understory woody and herbaceous forest 

development and protection.

Restore late-successional forest characteristics in the northern hardwood forest 

to improve habitat for the threatened Cheat Mountain salamander, the West 

Virginia northern flying squirrel, and other amphibian, mammal, and migratory 

bird species of conservation concern. Target characteristics include increasing 

density of snags, increasing downed coarse woody debris, and increasing the 

density of large trees (>50cm dbh).

Objective 2.3: Mature 

Northern Hardwood Forest
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-59

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Rationale

Mature, late-successional forest in West Virginia and in the High Allegheny 

Plateau is scarce. Although 78% of the state is forested, currently less than 

1% occurs in stands 90 years old or greater (USFS 2006). Historical accounts 

indicate that most of the trees in Canaan Valley were cut. Mature forest stands, 

uncut and greater than 200 years old, are absent from the valley. Periodic 

harvesting within the valley focused on removing black cherry and maples. The 

resulting forest communities are young and deficient both in species and forest 

structure diversity. 

Late-successional forests, those forests 100-200 years old and regenerating after 

cutting or disturbance, are ecologically significant as reservoirs of biodiversity 

and habitat for late-successional dependent species. Diverse, healthy, and 

naturally resilient forests are an important component of a sustainable ecological 

system and provide habitat for a variety of species dependent upon mature 

forest characteristics. This forest sere is the link in the continuum from early 

successional habitat following disturbance and old-growth conditions. 

Late-successional forests are characterized by large trees and snags, abundant 

coarse woody debris, a deep organic soil layer, and specific lichen and moss 

species living on dead wood (Whitman and Hagan 2004). Species dependent on 

these characteristics tend to be non-charismatic, such as mosses, lichens, fungi, 

and insects (Hagan and Whitman 2004). Providing habitat for these species 

maintains biodiversity that is likely to have implications for the ecological 

integrity of the forest system, even if those implications are currently unknown. 

The refuge is imbedded in a forested area. The surrounding public and privately 

owned forests are not intentionally managed for late-successional stages. 

However, the recent Monongahela National Forest Plan (USFS 2006) notes 

that future mature forest stands will become established in wilderness areas 

and other areas of special interest. Dolly Sods, a wilderness area managed by 

the Monongahela, borders the south-east corner of the refuge. By managing 

for late-successional northern hardwood forest, the refuge can contribute to 

the development of late-successional characteristics over a larger landscape in 

the Allegheny highlands. This objective contributes to the biological integrity, 

diversity, and environmental health of the landscape surrounding the refuge, 

which complies with Service directives (601 FW3 3.7(c)). 

Managing for late-successional forests also provides for the continuity of diversity 

and integrity of the area’s forests. This continuity means that over centuries, 

the presence of large trees and coarse woody debris continues, regardless of 

local disturbances. Limiting manipulation of the northern hardwood forest to 

the simulation of natural disturbances (single tree fall gaps) and limiting early 

successional management to the edges of the forest ensures this continuity. 

Improving late successional characteristics of forest stands would benefit focal 

species such as the threatened Cheat Mountain salamander and the northern 

flying squirrel on the refuge. Increasing coarse woody debris and moving 

towards a more mature forest with a closed canopy would help improve microhabitat conditions for the Cheat Mountain salamander as well as all terrestrial 

woodland salamander species. Increased coarse woody debris would also increase 

foraging opportunities for the northern flying squirrel through increased 

presence of fungal (truffle) growth. Larger trees with more interconnected
3-60 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

branches, snag formation, and promotion of spruce 

regeneration will improve general habitat conditions for the 

West Virginia northern flying squirrel. Migratory birds of 

concern such as saw-whet owl and brown creeper will benefit 

from increased cavity availability and sloughing bark for 

nesting opportunities.

The 15 year scope of our CCP falls far short of the decades 

used to measure tree growth and stand development in 

the mixed forest. This objective requires consideration of a 

much longer timeframe within which to measure and achieve 

results. As such, our expectation is that it would take at least 

100 years to accomplish this objective given the current state 

of refuge forested habitat. This timeframe is based on our 

prediction of how long it would take to achieve the forest and 

stand composition and structural characteristics targeted for 

our refuge focal species identified in the objective statement. 

Strategies

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval:

■ Identify and map stands with late-successional characteristics by compiling 

regionally-appropriate indicator characteristics (e.g. presence of certain moss 

and lichen species, number of snags per hectare, and number of trees > 50 cm 

dbh per hectare) and surveying stands for presence of these indicators. 

Within 10 to 15 years of CCP approval:

■ Improve habitat structure for refuge focal species through thinning and/or 

other stand improvement operations. Methods include, but are not limited to, 

girdling operations, reserve shelterwood cuts, or single tree or group selection 

cuts of up to one-half acre in size with cutting cycles of 15 to 20 years in order 

to maintain understory development. Retain approximately 6 snags > 15cm 

dbh per acre. 

■ Identify and prioritize even-aged stands for single tree fall disturbance and 

other silvicultural treatments to increase age class diversity.

■ Develop monitoring metrics for inclusion into the HMP such as percent 

coarse woody debris, number of snags and measures of micro-topography and 

structural complexity.

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Monitor breeding bird response to management.

■ Conduct monitoring surveys for Cheat Mountain salamander and northern 

flying squirrels associated with spruce habitat.

Buck

Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-61

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Advance late-successional characteristics in 214 acres of coniferous and mixed 

coniferous forests to maximize breeding and foraging habitat for Blackburnian 

warbler, black-throated blue warbler, saw-whet owl, West Virginia northern 

flying squirrel, fisher, and other wildlife species of special concern. Target 

characteristics include increasing density of large diameter spruce trees and 

snags, conifer canopy cover, cover of coarse woody debris, and increasing midstory stem density (1 – 12 cm dbh size class). We will strive to achieve 60% 

occupancy by Blackburnian warblers in all spruce-dominated forests larger than 

2.5 acres and increase occupancy by black-throated blue warblers by 10% over 

the next 15 years.

Rationale

Historical documents from the Canaan Valley area recall a time when a vast 

spruce forest covered the high Allegheny plateau, including the wetlands and 

uplands of the valley. The refuge currently protects approximately 32 acres 

of upland red spruce forest and 182 acres of mixed spruce-hardwood forest. 

Most of these stands occur on the high elevation ridges of Cabin Mountain. Red 

spruce forest classification was recently completed in the state and integrated 

into NatureServe. Rankings developed for the upland spruce communities on 

the refuge indicate they are either imperiled or vulnerable at both the state and 

global levels.

The red spruce forests of the refuge and the high Allegheny plateau harbor a 

unique, boreal assemblage of flora and fauna. Fisher, saw-whet owl, the recently 

de-listed West Virginia northern flying squirrel, and the federally threatened 

Cheat Mountain salamander occur in the high elevation spruce forests. These and 

other species of the spruce forests find optimal habitat where late-successional 

characteristics are prevalent. The NNL designation (1974) and the refuge’s 1979 

EIS recognized the importance of protecting this unique, relict boreal ecosystem.

Maintaining the integrity and restoring the pre-settlement character of the 

spruce forests where practicable are mandated in the Service’s Biological 

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 3) and continue 

to be relevant. By managing the existing red spruce forest for late-successional 

characteristics, 20 species identified in the WVDNR’s Wildlife Conservation 

Action Plan (2006) as in greatest need of conservation concern in the state would 

benefit. PIF identified Blackburnian and black-throated blue warblers as priority 

species of management concern in BCR 28, and as species of high regional 

concern within Physiographic Area 12. Due to the disjunctive distribution of 

mixed spruce habitats within Area 12, existing habitat is considered a very high 

conservation concern (PIF 2003). Blackburnian warblers are experiencing a 

3.8% decline per year within Physiographic Area 12 and even a steeper decline 

(9.0% decline per year) within West Virginia. Although range-wide trends for 

this species are positive (0.8% per year), most studies indicate that the Canadian 

populations are responsible for this increase (Morse 1994). 

Breeding habitat and seasonal territory for Blackburnian warbler has been found 

to average about 1.1 hectares (~2.7 acres) in forests similar to Canaan Valley: 

largely deciduous with patchily distributed conifers (Sherry and Homes 1985).

Where spruce cover is denser, territories were smaller, typically between 0.4 and 

0.6 hectares (~1 to 1.5 acres) in size. For this reason, we are using a minimum 

patch size of 2.5 acres as a management target for increasing the size of existing 

spruce cover for accommodating the assumed minimum territory for breeding 

Blackburnian warblers on refuge lands. 

Objective 2.4 (Mature 

Conifer Spruce / Mixed 

Forest)
3-62 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Black-throated blue warbler populations are considered stable within 

Physiographic Area 12. This species has a relatively small range and low 

densities even in suitable habitat. It requires dense understory structure for 

nesting which is generally poorly developed on the refuge due to heavy deer 

browse and fern encroachment following logging activities. This species is 

sensitive to structure and forest types which are restricted on the refuge and the 

central and southern Appalachians.

Increasing large spruce and snag density and coarse woody debris cover 

would ensure persistence and future expansion of existing Cheat Mountain 

salamander and West Virginia northern flying squirrel populations on refuge 

lands. The refuge’s even-aged stands provide a different structure in the forest 

than the former uneven-aged stands. Applying silvicultural techniques to 

increase the late-successional characteristics of the spruce forests can restore 

structural diversity of the stands and provide higher quality habitat for these 

species (Rentch et al. 2007, Carey and Wilson 2001). The refuge entered into 

an MOU with partner agencies and organizations in 2006 which focuses efforts 

on the protection and enhancement of spruce habitat and late-successional 

characteristics. 

Red spruce forests on the refuge and in the high Allegheny plateau are 

geographically and environmentally restricted and their former extent has been 

reduced to more or less isolated, small patches by logging and the regeneration 

of northern hardwoods replacing the spruce stands. This scarcity of habitat 

increases the risk posed by environmental threats to the ecosystem. Improving 

the quality of the existing spruce stands would provide increased resiliency to the 

threats facing these high elevation forests on the refuge. 

Strategies

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Identify all forest stands greater than 2.5 acres where red spruce is dominant. 

These stands would become the baseline breeding habitat locations for focal 

migratory bird species.

■ Develop and implement a forest understory habitat management plan for 

existing spruce forests which encourages shrub and sapling understory growth 

across large tracts of spruce dominated forest, retaining coarse woody debris 

and minimal removal of overstory cover.

Within 3 to 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Improve habitat structure for refuge focal species through thinning and/

or other stand improvement operations. Methods would include, but are not 

limited to, girdling operations, single tree or group selection cuts of up to onehalf acre in size with cutting cycles of 15 to 20 years, and reserved shelterwood 

cuts. All management locations will be inventoried for Cheat Mountain 

salamander presence prior to cutting. We will consult closely with the Service’s 

West Virginia Field Office (WVFO) and comply with the Recovery Plan 

recommendations during planning of cutting operations. 

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Conduct landbird point counts in spruce dominated forests to monitor focal 

migratory bird species breeding densities and track changes relative to habitat 

management.
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-63

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

■ Conduct monitoring for focal species and other species of conservation concern 

in relation to spruce management areas.

■ Protect the core of the spruce-dominated forests from disturbance, 

fragmentation, or invasive species infestation.

■ Conduct monitoring surveys for Cheat Mountain salamander and West Virginia 

northern flying squirrel associated with spruce habitat.

■ Work with partners to experiment with methods to achieve late-successional 

characteristics.

Expand the areal extent of understory and canopy spruce by at least 25% in 

conifer and hardwood dominant forests to increase the potential future sprucedominated forest and habitat for high elevation, conifer-forest dependent species 

such as Blackburnian warbler, black-throated blue warbler, saw-whet owl, fisher, 

West Virginia northern flying squirrel, and Cheat Mountain salamander. 

Rationale

Historical accounts of forest communities within and surrounding Canaan Valley 

indicate they were heavily dominated by conifers, mostly red spruce, prior to the 

late 1800s. Red spruce is a component of the relict montane forest community 

in West Virginia. Spruce forests of West Virginia are listed as an “endangered 

ecosystem” by the USGS (Noss, R. F. 2000). They have experienced 85-98% 

decline from their original range. In Canaan Valley, this plant community 

has been severely degraded and in many locations entirely removed from the 

landscape following extensive logging operations and fires. Originally thought to 

cover as much as 500,000 acres, with some estimates as high as 1 million acres, 

red spruce and spruce/hardwood forests now cover less than 50,000 acres in 

the state. The refuge will work to increase the extent and quality of red spruce 

forests in the existing locations and others provided by historical information and 

ecological modeling. The extent of spruce forest predicted over the next 15 years 

will be only a piece of the long term restoration vision of the refuge. The HMP 

will provide greater detail in locations of planting and silvicultural treatments to 

further this goal. 

The spruce forest of the West Virginia highlands provides unique habitat for 

a variety of wildlife species typical of more northern areas such as fisher, 

snowshoe hare, saw whet owl, and northern goshawk. In its WVCAP, WVDNR 

identified red spruce forest as a habitat “at-risk” with high conservation value. 

The WVCAP also identified 20 species in “greatest need of conservation” found 

in this habitat. Additionally, the threatened Cheat Mountain salamander and 

the recently de-listed West Virginia northern flying squirrel are found in close 

association with spruce forests. The lack of suitable habitat including the red 

spruce forest and the degraded and isolated condition of existing spruce forest 

were the primary reasons for listing the Cheat Mountain salamander and the 

West Virginia northern flying squirrel under the ESA, although the squirrel has 

recovered and was recently delisted. Increasing spruce forest on refuge lands will 

help improve local northern flying squirrel populations on refuge land.

Current stands of red spruce on the refuge are highly fragmented and exist 

almost entirely on the ridge line of southern Cabin Mountain or in isolated 

pockets of riparian corridors and bottomland forest swamps. Many existing 

spruce dominated stands are not large enough to provide significant habitat for 

migratory species of concern such as Blackburnian warbler. Additionally, refuge 

stands are generally isolated patches without corridors or connectivity with other 

stands within the refuge or to neighboring forestlands.

Objective 2.5 (Conifer 

Spruce / Mixed Forest)
3-64 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Improving the size and connectivity of red spruce forest on the refuge would 

help long term management and protection of species with the highest need for 

conservation in the state and within the flyway. Surveys by refuge staff have 

documented populations of the threatened Cheat Mountain salamander which are 

apparently isolated from each other due to the changes in forest community and 

loss of spruce dominated forest stands. Connectivity between refuge and USFS 

red spruce forest will be important for the stability of the recently de-listed West 

Virginia northern flying squirrel on refuge lands.

This objective is consistent with the goals of the multi-agency MOU for the 

conservation of the red spruce – northern hardwood ecosystem established in 

2006. The MOU emphasizes the need for land management agencies and other 

organizations to work towards the protection and restoration of the historic 

red spruce ecosystem in the Allegheny Highlands. Signatory agencies have 

begun a collaborative working group focused on red spruce restoration within 

the Allegheny highlands and identified the importance of spruce restoration 

within the Canaan area. Canaan offers a large expanse of potential wetland 

spruce forest habitat which is otherwise lacking throughout West Virginia. 

Modeling efforts indicate that most of the wetland habitat within Canaan Valley 

is consistent with requirements for red spruce forests and is a candidate area for 

restoration. 

Achieving the desired conditions detailed in this objective requires more than 

the 15 year planning window of this document. Nonetheless, strategic habitat 

management and planning efforts must be begun now and throughout the course 

of this 15 year plan in order to set the foundation for conifer restoration efforts 

on this refuge. We do not expect to meet all species and habitat objectives within 

the time frame of this plan but will work towards these objectives through active 

restoration and planning efforts within the refuge and between the refuge and its 

partners.

The refuge has been an active member in the Central Appalachian Spruce 

Restoration Initiative (CASRI) a collaborative working group for the restoration 

and conservation of the red spruce-northern hardwood forest ecosystem. This 

group includes the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

(West Virginia Field Office and Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge); U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Monongahela National Forest 

and Northern Research Station); State of West Virginia (Division of Natural 

Resources and Division of Forestry); The Nature Conservancy, and the West 

Virginia Highlands Conservancy, among others. 

CASRI has been practicing Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC) in West 

Virginia since its inception in 2007. Utilizing the scientific expertise of several 

state and federal agencies along with capabilities provided by NGO’s, universities 

and private organizations we have been able to apply specific resource goals 

over broad political and geographic boundaries. The recent increase of SHC 

collaborative work by the Service has reinforced the CASRI’s activities and 

could help expand and coalesce efforts as part of a Landscape Conservation 

Cooperative within the Appalachian Geographic Area.

(See rationale for Objective 2.4 for further discussion on this topic.)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-65

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Strategies

Within 3 to 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Identify and prioritize areas with greatest potential for spruce regeneration 

with emphasis given to suitable soils and aspect, proximity to existing spruce 

stands and riparian areas, and gaps and fragmentation created by old logging 

roads.

■ Locate and monitor Cheat Mountain salamander populations and use this 

information to help understand the impediments to the viability of the 

populations.

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval: 

■ Work with partners to experiment with silvicultural techniques that would 

increase long-term canopy dominance of red spruce.

Within 10 to 15 years of CCP approval:

■ Improve Cheat Mountain salamander habitat to increase the population’s 

viability.

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Work with partners to maintain and perpetuate a source of red spruce 

seedlings available for planting on the refuge. 

■ Plant spruce seedlings in high priority areas for regeneration in at least 20 

acres a year.

■ Collaborate with land management agencies and adjacent land owners to 

increase connectivity of spruce stands across management boundaries. 

■ Identify, connect, and enlarge spruce stands by under-planting existing 

vegetation with spruce seedlings. 

Provide and promote through active management a diversity of successional habitats in 

upland and wetland-edge shrubland, old field, grassland and hardwood communities to 

sustain early successional and shrubland specialists such as golden-winged warbler, 

American woodcock, brown thrasher, Eastern towhee, field sparrow, and other species 

of concern.

Manage 114 acres of successional aspen communities on a 15-20 year rotational 

basis so that 25% is continually maintained in early successional stages (0-15 year 

class) with a high stem density and less than 60% herbaceous ground cover, to 

perpetuate and potentially expand and improve aspen habitat for golden-winged 

warbler, American woodcock, brown thrasher, Eastern towhee, and other priority 

migratory bird species. 

Rationale 

Quaking aspen is an important habitat type for a variety of migratory and 

resident birds. Young dense regenerating stands are important foraging sites 

for woodcock and other song birds. Older stands provide suitable nesting habitat 

(Sepik et al. 1981). In Canaan Valley, aspen communities were found to have one 

GOAL 3

Objective 3.1 (Forested 

Wetland – Aspen 

Woodlands)
3-66 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

of the greatest avian species diversity of all habitats studied. Between 1978 and 

1993 a total of 33 species were documented during the breeding season using 

aspen stands in Canaan Valley (Michael 1993, Michael 1992a). Successional 

habitat created by aspen management may be particularly effective in Canaan 

where deer browse pressure is high. Aspen root suckers may outgrow deer 

herbivory pressure in one season thereby making it an effective community type 

to manage for early successional habitat.

The decline of early successional and transitional forest habitat in the northeast is 

concurrent with the decline of species dependent on this habitat type (Sauer et al. 

2007, Fink et al. 2006). On a regional scale, loss of small farms, commercial and 

residential development, suppression of historically important disturbances such 

as fire, and decrease in large area clear-cutting contribute to the loss of early 

successional habitat (Brooks 2003, Lorimer 2001, Trani et al. 2001). The suite of 

birds reliant on this habitat type are of high conservation priority in BCR 28 and 

the state (PIF 2003, WVDNR 2006) and includes American woodcock, Eastern 

towhee, field sparrow, indigo bunting, and brown thrasher. 

The refuge’s extensive shrublands, old fields, and young forests currently provide 

early successional and shrubland habitat that is scarce in the region, state, 

and local area. Managing for early successional and shrubland habitats on the 

refuge would ensure the persistence and protection of this habitat, unavailable 

in the surrounding landscape (Dettmers personal communication 2007, Smith 

et al. 2007). This may be particularly significant relative to the local extent 

of available managed early successional and shrubland habitat. The refuge is 

surrounded by forested lands including the Monongahela National Forest (Dolly 

Sods Wilderness Area) and two state parks where early successional habitat 

management is not a priority. 

One technique used to create and maintain early successional habitat in the 

northeast is cutting for the regeneration of aspen stands. When cut, girdled, 

or burned aspen vigorously root sprouts, creating a dense growth of sapling 

aspen stems. The resulting cover is preferred foraging ground for American 

woodcock, ruffed grouse, and a variety of nongame migratory birds. The HMP 

that will incorporate these disturbance techniques will be a priority to maintain a 

mosaic of regenerating aspen on the refuge and contribute to the available early 

successional and shrubland habitat. 

Aspen wetland

Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-67

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Generally, aspen management would occur in a mosaic to ensure that multiple 

age classes prevail across the landscape. Management of aspen would focus on 

selective patch cutting so that within an aspen management area, multiple age 

classes of aspen are represented to provide the breadth of habitat requirements 

for a diversity of wildlife species (Gullion 1984). Aspen management would be 

primarily performed with hand crews but may include the use of fire and heavy 

equipment such as a hydro-axe where appropriate. Management would focus on 

perpetuating and increasing aspen across the landscape with target patch sizes 

of 3 acres or greater. However, even small aspen stands have been shown to be 

important for a variety of neotropical migratory birds (Turchi T.M et al. 1995). 

Preferred aspen management to perpetuate the stand and provide abundant 

sprouting is to cut the entire stand, rather than selection or single tree cuts. 

(Gullion 1984).

Quaking aspen stands in Canaan Valley are a successional stage in the 

development of mixed conifer forested wetlands (Byers et al. 2007, E. Byers 

personal communication). These forested wetlands are of high conservation value 

as they occur in the state as an outlier population considerably south of this 

species’ primary range (Byers et al. 2007). Preserving a portion of the aspen 

stands would allow the development of the late-successional stages of the wetland 

forests and decrease the opportunities for the invasion of non-native plant species.

Beaver are a natural force regenerating aspen in Canaan Valley. The beaver 

browse young and mature aspen stems, stimulating root sprouting and the 

creation of dense pockets of new aspen stems. When the beaver population is 

unchecked, however, their preference for aspen can deplete an aspen stand 

and prohibit the dense regeneration favored by early successional bird species. 

Beaver trapping would balance the important role beaver play in maintaining 

the mosaic of wetland communities including aspen stands (refer to Objective 

1.2) with the interest in maintaining dense regenerating aspen stands. For 

more information on how the refuge would utilize beaver management to achieve 

habitat goals, refer to the compatibility determination for furbearer trapping 

(beaver) in appendix B. 

American woodcock is a priority species of conservation concern and an 

important management species for recreational hunters. As a species occurring 

in Canaan Valley in greater concentration and abundance than other parts of the 

state, the refuge identifies woodcock as an important management species. The 

Service developed the American Woodcock Management Plan in 1996 to help 

stem the decline in American woodcock (USFWS 1996). In 2008 the American 

Woodcock Conservation Plan was distributed by the Woodcock Task Force 

and identified recent trends and made recommendations for conservation on a 

continental scale. Long-term trends show a statistically significant decline of 

1.03% in the breeding population of woodcock from 1968-2009 and a 2.55% decline 

in West Virginia during the same time period (Cooper et al. 2009). Although the 

breeding index for woodcock in West Virginia has been positive showing numbers 

of singing males to be slightly higher than predicted values for the state, long 

term trends show a continued decrease in singing male woodcock (Kelley and 

Rau 2006). Recruitment rates (number of immature birds per adult female) for 

West Virginia in recent years were consistent with regional recruitment rates 

but on average still below the long-term regional average (1963-2007) (Kelley 

and Rau 2006). Changes in singing male populations in West Virginia show a 

deficit of 17,222 males compared to densities observed in the 1970s (Kelley and 

Williamson 2008). The major causes for these declines are thought to be loss and 

degradation of habitat on the breeding and wintering grounds, resulting from 

forest succession and land use changes (Dessecker and McAuley 2001, Dwyer et 

al. 1983, Owen et al. 1977, Straw et al. 1994). 
3-68 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

The WVCAP identifies American woodcock as a Priority 1 species for 

conservation (WVDNR 2006) and the USFS Forest Plan lists it as a “vulnerable” 

species in the Monongahela National Forest (2006). Additionally, American 

woodcock has been noted as a priority for the Canaan Valley refuge in all of its 

founding documents (USFWS 1979, USFWS 1994a). Canaan Valley continues 

to support the largest documented fall migration habitat in West Virginia and 

accounts for the largest percentage of woodcock harvest of any area in the state. 

Management of early successional habitat is necessary to maintain and improve 

habitat for this species for both nesting and migration habitat.

Woodcock require several different habitat conditions that must be in close 

proximity to one another. Functional foraging habitat for woodcock occurs on 

moist, rich soil dominated by dense shrub cover (75-90%). Young shade intolerant 

hardwoods and aspen create ideal habitat as feeding areas and daytime (diurnal) 

cover (Kelley and Williamson 2008). Other habitats include clearings for 

courtship (singing grounds), large openings for night roosting, and young second 

growth hardwoods (15-20 years) for nesting and brood-rearing (Kelley and 

Williamson 2008, Sepik et al. 1981; Keppie and Whiting 1994). Recommendations 

for the stabilization of early successional habitat are to focus on cutting mature 

forest types that are potentially suitable for woodcock habitat as well as allowing 

non-forested habitat to mature into habitat that would support woodcock (Kelley 

and Williamson 2008).

The refuge would work with partners such as the Wildlife Management Institute, 

universities, and the WVDNR to develop early successional habitat research and 

management demonstration areas that include a variety of early successional 

habitat types as described in Objectives 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. The purpose will be to 

establish at least one site on the refuge which can demonstrate effective habitat 

management for priority early successional species of concern in BCR 28, such 

as American woodcock, Eastern towhee, and Canada warbler. Several areas are 

indicated on map B-4 for potential demonstration sites where a mosaic of plant 

communities will be managed together to best meet the needs of priority early 

successional migratory birds. The refuge, in consultation with its partners, 

would establish at least one site for these purposes. If management capability 

permits, research needs develop, partner support is sufficient, and the action 

does not conflict with the objectives for older growth forest management 

elsewhere in this plan, other demonstration sites would be included under this 

alternative. Management methods within demonstration areas may include forest 

cutting, mowing, grazing, and prescribed fire. Monitoring and research would be 

emphasized to communicate results of management to the public and other state 

and federal agencies. 

Strategies

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Develop and implement a HMP detailing aspen management for successional 

wildlife habitat with an emphasis on improving breeding and foraging habitat 

for American woodcock, golden-winged warbler, and other migratory birds. 

■ Develop or adapt (from others) monitoring protocol consistent with the 

furbearer management plan to assess beaver activity near regenerating 

aspen stands and continue to manage beaver populations adjacent to aspen 

management areas to prevent excessive damage. 

■ Work with partners to establish early successional management demonstration 

sites which include aspen communities.
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-69

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Within 3 to 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Identify and designate aspen stands where perpetuation of natural succession 

to forested swamps would occur.

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Conduct landbird point counts and woodcock singing ground surveys to assess 

performance of managed aspen habitats for meeting fundamental objective 

(Objective 3.1) and to determine the need for future management actions.

■ Manage up to 5-10 acres of aspen annually through block cutting to promote 

early successional habitat. 

Use accepted silvicultural practices within 1,130 acres of forest edge areas to 

create openings, promote understory development, and develop and sustain 

breeding and foraging habitat for American woodcock, Eastern towhee, brown 

thrasher, Canada warbler, and other species of concern. 

Rationale

Northern hardwood forests comprise approximately 6,400 acres on the refuge, 

occurring primarily on the slopes of Cabin, Brown, and Canaan mountains and 

along Middle Ridge. Shrubland and old field meadows typically surround the 

forest on the more gentle toe-slopes before transitioning to wetland communities. 

Pockets of northern hardwood forest, less than 8 acres, occur within the toe-slope 

shrublands and meadows. Together, these forested islands account for nearly 500 

acres of forested habitat. However, with less than 100 m buffering their edge and 

interior, they function entirely as edge habitat and provide little benefit to forest 

interior species. 

The refuge is identifying these pocket-forest areas and a 100 meter-wide band 

at the edge of the main body of the northern hardwood forest as suitable for 

reverting to early successional habitat. The 100 meter-wide band of northern 

hardwood forest identified as suitable for cutting would be limited to protect 

sensitive plant communities and habitat features. Riparian buffers greater 

than 100 meters on each side of water features would be maintained. Rare or 

sensitive plant communities would be avoided, including areas with limestoneinfluenced soils. The forest gap along Sand Run and upper Glade Run is excluded 

in order to maintain the connectivity between the forests of Middle Ridge and 

Cabin Mountain. Areas would be prioritized based on their proximity to suitable 

breeding, foraging, and migration habitats and to other early successional habitat 

management activities.

Converting the forest islands and edges to early successional habitat would 

provide additional nesting habitat for priority species of concern such as brown 

thrasher, Eastern towhee, and American woodcock, post fledging habitat for 

forest bird species, and important migration foraging and staging areas. Early 

successional habitat is important as most species, especially migratory birds, 

associated with this habitat type are declining in the northeast (Sauer et al. 2005, 

Fink et al. 2006, DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2003). Providing successional habitat 

may be especially important on the refuge as the surrounding landscape is 

predominantly forested.

Objective 3.2 (Northern 

Hardwood Forest – Edge 

Habitat)
3-70 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

With the plan to increase early successional habitat by cutting 

forest, there would be a loss in extent of overall forested habitat 

and a slight reduction in the extent of forest interior habitat. 

However, we expect there to be minimal loss in habitat quality. 

The forested islands provide poor habitat for both forest interior 

and early successional species. Cutting along the forest edge 

may improve foraging habitat for forest interior bird species. 

Forest interior birds utilize successional vegetation as post 

breeding habitat (Chandler 2007, Vitz and Rodewald 2006, Vitz 

and Rodewald 2007, Denmon 1998, Pagen et. al 2000). Increased 

vegetative structure provides cover for inexperienced immature 

forest birds and more abundant food resources (particularly 

berry producing shrubs). Small patches of early successional 

habitat are important to post-fledgling, forest interior species 

and these species tend to avoid forest edges. This may indicate 

the potential importance of management to maintain discreet 

patches of early successional habitat in close proximity to forest 

interior breeding habitat for these species (Vitz and Rodewald 

2006). Birds using Canaan Valley’s forest interior habitat 

may benefit from regenerating forest adjacent to intact mature forest habitat 

(Dawson, personal communication 2007). 

Management practices to convert forest edge to functional early successional 

habitat may include group selection, clear cuts or patch cuts of up to 5-15 

acres in size. Sepik (1981) recommended patch cuts of 4 acres for woodcock 

management. Depending on deer browse impacts, some cuts may need to 

be larger. Cutting cycles and rotations may follow standard practices or be 

experimental to determine successful practices for Canaan Valley. Cutting cycles 

for northeastern woodcock habitat management typically range from 8 to15 

years and rotations from 20 to40 years depending on habitat conditions. Canaan’s 

management is expected to fall within these ranges. Some 3-5 acre openings 

may be permanently maintained primarily by mowing and brush clearing using 

mechanized equipment.

Management of this habitat would occur in a shifting mosaic of patches across 

the refuge as we implement decisions to allow fields, shrub, and young forest to 

transition to forest. Creating a series of variable-sized cuts along the forested 

toe-slopes of the refuge would allow early successional birds access to these 

newly created habitat types from adjacent suitable habitat along the forest-field 

edge. Because of the adjacent occupied habitat, successional forest edge cutting 

would serve to increase and improve the already existing habitat and ensure a 

continued availability of this habitat over time. Spacing of smaller cuts (0.2 acres 

or less) may be clustered to maintain an adequate level of early successional 

habitat across the landscape. Creation of a mosaic of smaller scattered forest 

cuts may prevent excessive nest predation typically associated with larger and 

permanently maintained openings (Suarez et al. 1997). 

Due to the potential for Indiana bat use of upland forests in close proximity to 

wetland and riparian corridors the refuge will inventory proposed management 

areas for bats prior to management actions. We will consult with the Service 

WVFO closely prior to conducting these operations.

Landbird point counts in regenerating successional habitat would be used to 

evaluate success of management actions for the targeted migratory bird species 

and fulfilling our objective. However, meeting this objective would also depend 

upon the impact of deer browse on desired woody regeneration. Therefore we 

Blueberries

Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-71

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

would also evaluate regeneration success of cut forested habitat to determine the 

impact of white-tailed deer browse and fern encroachment on species diversity 

and succession of woody species. Deer densities on the refuge appear to be 

reducing forest regeneration. Recent harvest information (2002-2004) indicates 

that deer densities on the refuge may range between 17 to 30 deer per square 

mile (USFWS unpublished data, Gary Foster personal communication 2006) and 

a recent forest inventory on the refuge documented a lack of seedling and sapling 

forest species. A deer density that permits the success of successional forest 

development would be imperative to achieve this objective.

If woody regeneration success is not achieved (target stem densities, species 

diversity) or desired occupancy of focal migratory bird species is not met, the 

refuge will revise the management strategies to achieve this objective. This 

could include working with the WVDNR to decrease deer densities on the refuge 

and adjacent lands, fencing, and changing the size and spacing of cut areas. 

Target stem densities of regenerating hardwoods in one study were documented 

for northern hardwood forests as ranging from 91 to 297 stems per acre from 

1 to five years following a cut (Martin and Hornbeck 1989). Stem density, 

regenerating species diversity, presence and abundance of invasive species, and 

habitat use by targeted focal species would be used to evaluate the success of this 

objective.

Refer to rationale under Objective 3.1 for additional information on the 

importance of early successional habitat and demonstration site development.

Strategies

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Develop and implement a Habitat Management Plan dealing with successional 

forest management plan for transitional hardwood forest communities. 

■ Develop and implement a monitoring plan to evaluate regeneration success 

relative to deer browse impacts and fern encroachment. 

■ Use silvicultural practices to create openings, promote understory 

development, and sustain early successional habitat for American woodcock 

and Eastern towhee and other early successional species. Generally, use 

group selection, or patch cuts of up to 5 acres in size. Cutting cycles would be 

approximately 10-15 years on a 15-20 year rotation.

Within 3 to 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Work with partners to establish early successional management demonstration 

sites, as described in the rationale for Objective 3.1, which include even aged 

stand management of forest edges

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Conduct landbird point counts during breeding and survey areas during 

migration to assess performance of managed successional hardwood forests 

for meeting fundamental objective above and to determine need for further 

management (set-back maintenance, selective thinning-out of tall tree species).

■ Manage 10-15 acres of northern hardwood forest edge habitat annually to 

promote early successional habitat. Areas will be surveyed prior to cutting for 

presence of Indiana bats. 
3-72 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Allow natural succession to occur in 2,482 acres of old fields, manage 216 acres 

of grasslands, and maintain 853 acres of shrub communities 2-10 feet tall, 

interspersed with herbaceous openings to improve habitat for high priority, 

shrub-dependent birds of conservation concern such as golden-winged warbler, 

American woodcock, Eastern towhee, brown thrasher, and field sparrow. 

Rationale

Shrub-dependent species are a declining bird group due to loss of early 

successional habitat. The PIF Continental Plan specifically recommends 

the management and protection of shrub habitat to help reverse declines of 

priority bird species (Rich, T.D. et al. 2004). This habitat type is also given a 

high conservation priority in the PIF Physiographic Area 12 plan (PIF 2003). 

In particular the plan notes the importance of high elevation areas providing 

naturally occurring shrub communities to support some of the most imperiled 

migratory birds of this habitat group. Shrub and old field habitats are also 

important for migrating land birds and raptors many of which are species of 

conservation concern from the Northern Forest and Eastern Biomes (Rich, T.D. 

et al. 2004). Management actions even on smaller tracts for shrub habitat can be 

effective as shrub dependent birds are not typically sensitive to habitat patch size 

and many will use small patches of shrub habitat (Watts 2000). 

Shrub habitat comprised of various shrub species, or a diverse mix of young 

trees, provides an abundance of insect food for breeding birds which need to 

consume large amounts of protein for reproduction and feeding young. Many 

shrub species bear fruit in the fall which help boost the fat reserves for migrating 

or over-wintering birds. The structural density in this habitat type provides cover 

from predators and shelter from harsh weather. Shrubby, early successional 

patches in close proximity to interior forest breeding territories are important 

for survival of fledgling forest birds, which feed on the abundant food sources in 

relative safety from predators in the dense foliage. 

Planting alder may increase the amount of manageable alder habitat for 

woodcock in locations where soils are not saturated. These non-saturated 

areas provide suitable habitat for large numbers of earthworms, which are an 

important food source for woodcock. Alder in Canaan Valley currently grows 

mainly along flood plains of larger streams such as the Blackwater, North 

Branch, Little Blackwater, and Glade Run. Soil saturation is usually high in these 

sites with periods of flooding seasonally. Wet saturated soils are considered to 

be less functional as foraging areas for woodcock because of the low density of 

earthworms and higher density of herbaceous understory vegetation (Sepik et 

al. 1981, Weik pers. comm. 2006, Williamson 2008). Propagation and planting of 

alder in drier sites adjacent to breeding and cover sites, although labor intensive, 

is an option to provide higher quality foraging habitat in alder cover. The refuge 

currently has an agreement with NRCS to propagate alder for this purpose. 

Sites for cutting alder will be evaluated prior to cutting to assess soil saturation 

and occurrence of other resources of concern. Typically we expect to inventory 

alder communities to identify drier alder sites for management which will be cut 

by hand crews. Size of the cut will depend primarily on hydrology and locations of 

plant communities of concern. 

Old field habitat occurs as abandoned pasture or hay fields typically interspersed 

with hawthorn, spirea, St. Johnswort and other shrubby species. Some areas 

on the refuge appear to be slowly reverting to more woody species while others 

appear to be in a long term early successional/old field state. Fortney notes 

a slow shift from grass dominated habitat to shrub and young forest stands 

in a comparison of Canaan Valley habitats between 1975 and 1997. Similarly, 

the rate of early transitional forest types apparently slowed during the same 

Objective 3.3 (Shrubland 

and Old Field)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-73

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

period (Fortney 1997). Density of grasses and bracken ferns as well as distance 

from seed tree sources and extensive deer browse pressure may explain the 

long term maintenance of this community type in Canaan Valley (Fortney and 

Rentch 2003). Nonetheless, the persistence of this open habitat interspersed with 

hawthorn and shrub thickets provides important habitat for a variety of breeding 

and migratory birds including field sparrow and northern harrier.

American woodcock favor woody succession habitats on moist soils where worms 

are abundant and use the shrubby forest floor for nest sites. Because of the 

high moisture content, these areas tend to be composed of woody vegetation 

in either shrubs or young tree species or both. Woodcock also need more open, 

short-grass habitat for singing and display territory during the breeding 

season, so shrublands in close proximity to short grasslands are ideal. Eastern 

towhee and brown thrasher prefer drier shrubby habitats such as are typically 

found along forest and field edges where vegetative growth is more complex 

and offers a variety of fruits, nuts, and insects among the leaf litter. Field 

sparrows favor old field/forest edges where woody encroachment, tall forbs, and 

shrubs are well-represented in an otherwise open habitat, and where they can 

quickly flee for cover in the adjacent forest. This scenario is frequently found in 

landscapes containing a mosaic mix of field and forest or in regenerating cutover areas. Allowing old fields to develop into shrubby successional habitat is 

recommended as a management technique by the Woodcock Task Force (Kelly 

and Williamson 2008). 

Under this objective the refuge would consider the use of prescribed grazing 

within the research demonstration areas to reduce herbaceous and woody 

vegetation, particularly under hawthorn savannah habitats. Dense hawthorns 

are important foraging areas for woodcock and are difficult to maintain utilizing 

mechanized equipment. Animals used for this purpose would be carefully 

managed to ensure stocking and duration meet habitat management goals of 

vegetation control. Once these goals are met, animals would be removed from the 

area. Should the refuge decide to use prescribed grazing, we would use the early 

successional demonstration areas as the evaluation site and we would develop a 

American woodcock

Richard Baetsen/USFWS
3-74 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

monitoring plan for vegetation response (both native and invasive species) as well 

as for wildlife response for targeted focal species. Before we employ prescribed 

grazing as a management tool we will need to write a compatibility determination 

for this use to ensure that grazing will not interfere or detract from the purposes 

for which the refuge was established or the mission of the Service.

Protection and management of these habitats would provide benefits to a 

diversity of other migratory birds and state species of concern. Both alder 

flycatcher and swamp sparrow are state species of concern that heavily utilize 

the shrub thicket habitats on the refuge. Invertebrate species of concern such 

as Atlantis fritillary and Harris’ checkerspot utilize flowering plants in old field 

habitats for nectar sources such as ox-eye daisy, hawkweeds, milkweeds, and 

spirea (Allen 1997). Maintaining these shrub and old field communities will 

ensure that the refuge not only supports migratory bird species of concern on a 

regional context but also maintains local populations of state species of concern.

Refer to rationale under Objective 3.1 for importance of early successional habitat 

and demonstration site development.

Strategies

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Develop and implement a shrub and old field habitat management plan as part 

of the overall HMP.

■ Establish at least one demonstration area, easily accessible and visible from 

public access roads or trails, to demonstrate early successional management 

techniques and wildlife habitat response, as described in the rationale for 

Objective 3.1.

■ Allow succession to occur on 216 acres of managed grassland and 2,482 acres of 

old field habitat to maintain and increase shrubland habitat. 

■ Identify and prioritize suitable locations for alder planting, conduct 

experimental plantings and monitor results.

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval:

■ Identify locations where alder communities occur in unsaturated and drier 

soils, and prioritize and conduct experimental cutting for alder regeneration. 

Alder rotations would be approximately 20 years.

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Conduct landbird point counts during breeding, migration, or winter to 

assess performance of managed shrub and old field habitats for meeting 

the fundamental objective above and to determine the need for further 

management (set-back maintenance, selective thinning-out of tall tree species).

■ Set-back succession by mowing or grazing 5-10 acres of spirea, St. Johnswort 

and other fast growing shrub communities on a two to four year rotation to 

maintain singing ground habitat for American woodcock.
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-75

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Manage 315 acres of grassland habitat in fields no less than 50 acres by 

maintaining suitable herbaceous ground cover, bare ground coverage, vegetation 

height, grass-forb ratios and limiting invasive plant establishment to maximize 

breeding and migration habitat for grasshopper sparrow, Henslow’s sparrow, 

bobolink, and other priority grassland dependent birds.

Rationale

Birds depending on early successional habitats such as grasslands are one of 

the fastest declining bird groups because of habitat loss and changes in farming 

practices. Grasshopper sparrows, for example, have declined at a rate of 3.6% 

per year across the U.S. from 1966 to1994 and declined 5.4% per year in the 

northeast between 1966 and 2007 (Sauer et al. 1995, Sauer et al. 2007). Habitat 

loss, conversion of pasture to intensive row crops, increased frequency of mowing, 

and lack of fire are cited as the causes of population declines of this and other 

grassland-dependent species (Vickery 1996). Development and fragmentation 

of grasslands has continued in Canaan Valley reducing available nesting and 

migration habitat outside of refuge ownership.

Grassland habitat is considered a moderate to low priority at the BCR and 

physiographic area scale but is a declining habitat type in West Virginia 

(PIF 2003, WVDNR 2006). The physiographic plan specifically mentions the 

importance of maintaining early successional habitats within the larger forested 

landscape and notes that maintaining land currently in grassland habitat will 

contribute to conservation objectives for these species throughout the Northeast 

(PIF 2003). 

The refuge does have the potential acreage to help sustain local populations of 

some declining obligate grassland species. Many grassland birds breeding on the 

refuge (grasshopper sparrow, savannah sparrow, eastern meadowlark) require at 

least 20 acres of contiguous grassland habitat (Jones and Vickery 1997). Breeding 

grassland birds were found to respond more to vegetative structure and vertical 

diversity than to field size on the refuge indicating that existing grassland 

acreage supports functional obligate grassland breeding bird populations 

(Warren 2001). Continued maintenance of intact functional grasslands on the 

refuge adds to local and regional grassland bird species conservation and 

provides areas where nesting is not disrupted by mowing, haying, or grazing 

activities.

The use of refuge grasslands by species like grasshopper sparrow, savannah 

sparrow, Henslow’s sparrow, bobolink, and Eastern meadowlark adds to the 

avian diversity of the refuge. Additionally, five grassland birds listed as priority 

1 and 2 species by the WVDNR use refuge grasslands as breeding or migration 

habitat thereby contributing to the state conservation of these species (WVDNR 

2006). Research conducted by the Service at 13 national wildlife refuges in 

region 5 from 2001 to 2003 found Canaan Valley’s breeding obligate grassland 

bird population to be one of the more diverse in the study. Additionally density of 

breeding grassland birds at Canaan ranked 5th out of the 13 refuges in the study 

(Runge et al. 2004). 

The highest density of obligate grassland breeding birds averaged over three 

years of a regional grassland bird study (2001-2003) and three years of a 

productivity study (2002-2004) was 0.27 per acre (0.7 /hectare) for the two 

refuge grassland study sites. Savannah sparrows had the highest density of 

the four grassland obligate species found. Grasshopper sparrows have shown a 

positive trend following a prescribed burn on the Beall Tract and recent banding 

operations have documented site fidelity to this field for this species (USFS data 

unpublished). Applying these density estimates across all refuge fields managed 

Objective 3.4 (Managed 

Grasslands)
3-76 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

for breeding obligate grassland birds, we can determine if management actions 

are meeting targeted occupancy and density measures. We can use the data to 

refine objectives in the future and determine if the desired field characteristics 

are correct for achieving the fundamental objective.

An additional measure to ensure the refuge is meeting this objective is to repeat 

productivity monitoring of grassland nesting species to ensure nest success 

meets or exceeds previous documented figures. Overall nest success of grassland 

species on the refuge was 63.7% during a 2002-2004 study. Periodic nest 

monitoring can help determine the effectiveness of refuge management actions. 

This will be particularly important as increasing amounts of suitable grassland 

nesting habitat adjacent to the refuge are either developed or fall out of active 

grassland management (hay production and grazing). Since the grassland bird 

productivity research was conducted, over 133 acres of private grassland habitat 

have been developed in Canaan Valley. These areas may affect productivity on 

refuge grasslands by increasing competition for nesting and foraging habitat, 

decreasing the amount of post-fledging dispersal habitat available and possibly 

increasing predation through alteration of habitat (home development increasing 

predator base and predator movement corridors).

By reviewing the nest success, relative abundance, contribution to local biological 

diversity, and peripheral benefits to other species of grassland birds, the refuge 

determines that continued grassland management is an important contribution to 

the refuge’s biological resources. If future research determines that factors such 

as nest success or abundance are below levels which warrant continued active 

management for grassland obligate nesting species, the management regime may 

change to provide benefits to migrating landbirds, raptors, and small mammal 

using these fields.

The use of managed grasslands by migrating birds has not been well documented 

at the refuge. It is suspected that rank grassland habitat is important for a 

variety of land birds moving through the area, especially for sparrow species. 

However, open grasslands are also important foraging areas for raptors such 

as northern harrier (state conservation priority), and rough-legged hawk. 

Northern harriers concentrate in Canaan Valley in the fall and spring, and have 

also been documented in June; however only one nesting record exists for this 

species in Canaan Valley from 1964. Rough-legged hawks winter in the Valley 

and forage in refuge grasslands. Another objective will be to provide forage and 

cover (August – February) for migrating land bird and raptor species including 

northern harrier, and rough legged hawk. Other priority species benefiting from 

grassland management include Henslow’s sparrow, northern harrier, pink-edged 

sulfur, Harris’checkerspot, and Atlantis fritillary.

Strategies

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Develop and implement a management plan to improve grassland habitat for 

nesting and migratory bird species.

Within 3 to 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Remove trees and fences which cause fragmentation and edge effects and 

consolidate adjacent fields separated by these edge-forming features into 

larger units to increase the percentage of effective interior habitat.

■ Assess the use and evaluate the importance of managed grasslands to 

migrating landbirds and raptors.

■ Work with partners to establish early successional management demonstration 

sites which include grassland habitat.
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-77

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Within 10 to 15 years of CCP approval:

■ Work with private landowners and partners to encourage late haying and 

mowing of grasslands adjacent to refuge property.

■ Work with private landowners to develop conservation easements and other 

land protection incentives to maintain grassland habitat in the surrounding 

area.

Throughout the Life of the CCP:

■ Set back succession by a combination of mowing, haying, or burning on a threeyear cycle or as needed to reduce woody encroachment on 315 acres (Beall 

north, Beall south, Cooper, Harper, Freeland, and Orders tracts) of grassland 

focused on breeding areas for grassland obligate bird species. Some fields 

require shorter rotations where soil moisture and proximity to colonizing 

tree and shrub species promotes competition with desired grasses and forbs. 

Maintaining rotations will ensure that standing vegetation is retained in some 

fields for migration habitat.

■ Continue appropriate monitoring and survey programs as funding and staffing 

permits. The results of these surveys would trigger adjustments to strategies 

for management, or evaluation of objectives needing refinement. Examples of 

monitoring or surveys: 

❍ Evaluate achievement of the fundamental objective (measure 

abundance, relative abundance, and density on selected fields 

annually throughout the life of the CCP) by conducting point counts 

established in grasslands for surveys during the breeding season 

(late May through June). 

❍ Evaluate quality of grasslands for grasshopper sparrows by 

conducting periodic vegetation surveys (height, grass-forb ratio, 

and percent bare ground) during the breeding season at bird survey 

locations. If sparrow density or percent occupancy falls, and grass 

height, grass-forb ratio and percent bare ground are contributing 

factors, then the grassland management regime will be reevaluated.

Balsam fir

Ken Sturm/USFWS
3-78 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Visitors of all abilities enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

education to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of refuge 

habitats, wildlife, and cultural history.

Within 5 years of CCP approval, at least 80 percent of hunters on the refuge will 

report having a high-quality experience. 

Rationale 

Hunting is one of the six priority public uses to receive enhanced consideration on 

national wildlife refuges according to the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act. Hunting 

is recognized in the Refuge System as a healthy, traditional outdoor past time, 

and is deeply rooted in our American heritage. 

In many cases, hunting does not just offer a form of wildlife-dependent 

recreation. It also provides a means to keep animal populations in balance with 

the carrying capacity of the land. White-tailed deer hunting, for example, is not 

only a wildlife-dependent form of recreation but also a means to curb local deer 

population growth in the valley and better manage and meet habitat objectives 

for biodiversity. Reducing the deer herd on the refuge would enable success 

in managing early successional habitats for woodcock and other species. Deer 

hunting also provides assistance with statewide deer population control efforts. 

Also, local communities have relied on hunting to limit crop and landscape 

damage from deer, and to provide outdoor recreation. 

In the strategies below we propose several methods for increasing the deer 

harvest, such as providing access to deer in remote portions of the refuge. 

Opportunities for access may increase as we acquire more land within the 

refuge’s approved acquisition boundary. We also propose to expand hunting 

pressure on a broader, landscape level. A concerted effort is necessary to exert 

uniform pressure on the herd on and off refuge lands. At the same time we 

need to prevent deer from simply moving to adjacent lands which do not permit 

hunting. In the past, the WVDNR has worked with homeowners in Timberline 

to develop a special hunt on their land. However those efforts never came to 

fruition. Canaan Valley Resort State Park may have a management deer hunt in 

the future.. We would also develop educational programs for visitors and hunters 

to explain what the carrying capacity for deer should be and why recreational 

hunting is needed to accomplish these goals. 

While we plan to use feedback from hunters to help determine whether our 

strategies are contributing to a more high quality hunt, it will be important to 

remember that not all hunters have the same criteria for measuring the quality 

of a hunt. Some deer hunters equate a quality hunting experience with seeing 

a high number of deer, while other deer hunters may want more of a challenge. 

Furthermore, it is possible that woodcock hunters could be more satisfied with 

hunting on the refuge than deer hunters due to our proposal to create more early 

successional habitat, as described in the above objectives. On the other hand, 

offering more areas for woodcock hunting may translate into more hunters, and 

this may not be a desirable outcome for some hunters. 

GOAL 4

Objective 4.1 (Hunting)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-79

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Strategies

In addition to alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Implement a simpler, streamlined permitting system for the hunting program. 

This system would require less administrative time, but would still provide 

staff with information about the hunt. It will utilize Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approved hunt surveys, and may be run with the state licensing 

system.

■ Modify “no rifle hunting zones” on the refuge hunt map to open additional 

refuge lands to rifle hunting (see map 3-6). 

■ Provide a shuttle service to facilitate deer removal during the first week of 

gun season and for the entire extent of applicable doe seasons. Shuttles would 

carry deer in and out of areas along Middle Valley Trail and Camp 70 Loop 

trail. A stream crossing along Middle Valley Trail (either Sand Run or Glade 

Run) would be made stable for ATV traffic. Staff and volunteer hunters will 

establish and coordinate the shuttle service, plan the routes, schedule pick up 

times, and publicize the service throughout the hunting community. Success of 

this program will be evaluated based on anticipated increased hunter pressure 

and harvest from the center of the refuge. Modification or cessation of the 

program are options should it fail to meet the refuge’s deer management goals.

■ Open the Beall gate to allow hunters access to North Beall Road by licensed 

vehicle (only cars and trucks, no ATVs). Vehicles would follow the gravel road 

to the north, traveling an additional 0.8 mile towards the interior of the Main 

Tract, which is the 9,176-acre tract of land in the northern part of the refuge. 

Continued maintenance on the gravel road would be required.

■ Close the Research Natural Area to all hunting according to refuge policy, 

except for a deer management hunt.

■ Request hunter participation in cottontail rabbit identification through 

collection of refuge harvested cottontail skulls. Work with the WVDNR for 

identification of eastern and Appalachian cottontails harvested on refuge lands.

■ Provide outreach and education to promote understanding of the impacts of 

overabundant deer. This could include a section in the hunt brochure, a fall 

Visitor Center exhibit and a traveling exhibit.

■ Gather deer population data and work with WVDNR, surrounding landowners, 

hunt clubs and other partners to reduce the deer herd in Canaan Valley by 

encouraging cooperative, managed deer hunts.

■ Work with WVDNR to improve reporting on hunter harvest on refuge lands. 
3-80 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval:

■ Work with the state to permit special antlerless hunts on the refuge.

■ Work with the state legislature and state representatives more closely on deer 

related issues, solutions, and legislative proposals.

■ Require a special use permit for rabbit hunting.

Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide fishing opportunities such that 80 

percent of anglers report having a high-quality fishing experience on the refuge.

Rationale

In alternative B we would officially open the refuge to fishing by amending 50 

CFR 32.68. We would allow fishing according to state seasons and regulations. 

Fishing is one of the six priority public uses to receive enhanced consideration 

on national wildlife refuges according to the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act. 

Fishing is also an historic and traditional use in the Canaan Valley area, and 

it is a popular activity locally, state-wide and throughout the Refuge System. 

Fishing promotes an understanding and appreciation of natural resources and 

their management on all lands and waters in the Refuge System. Refuge-specific 

fishing regulations would ensure fish community health and demographic 

structure for sustainable populations.

The Refuge Improvement Act stipulates that “In administering the System, 

the Secretary shall...ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the System are maintained for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans...” One of several Service policies generated 

from that Act is contained in the Service Manual: 601 FW 3, “Biological 

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health.” Part 3.14(f) of that policy 

states...”We do not introduce species on a refuge outside of their historic range 

or introduce a species if we determine they were naturally extirpated, unless 

such introductions are essential for the survival of the species and prescribed in 

an endangered species recovery plan, or is essential for the control of an invasive 

species and prescribed in an integrated pest management plan.” In the spirit of 

these stipulations, fisheries management on the refuge would focus on supporting 

self-sustaining habitats and native or naturalized species populations. Stocking 

native fish would be considered in cooperation with state partners and hatcheries 

in order to maintain a healthy and balanced ecosystem. 

Strategies

In addition to alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Officially open the refuge to fishing by submitting an opening package for 

fishing. As part of this process, develop a compatibility determination in 

conjunction with this draft CCP/EA. The remaining components of the fishing 

package include a signed Finding of No Significant Impact for the final CCP, a 

published a final regulation, a revised 50 C.F.R. § 32.68, and a fishing plan. 

■ Assist partners in conducting creel and angler surveys.

■ Work with the interagency fisheries group to develop a plan to maintain a 

quality fishery while restoring native fish populations within the refuge and 

the valley. 

Objective 4.2 (Fishing)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-81

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

■ Improve signage directing the public to designated approved fishing locations.

■ Provide informational brochures and/or signs that promote awareness of 

refuge-specific and state fishing regulations.

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval;

■ Educate anglers on the proper use and disposal of native and non-native bait.

■ Work with Canaan Valley Institute (CVI) to construct an ADA-compliant 

fishing platform on Camp 70 Road, on the Service’s property or on CVI’s 

property.

Within 5 years of CCP approval, at least 80 percent of refuge visitors engaged 

in wildlife observation and nature photography will report a high quality 

experience.

Rationale

As stated in alternative A, wildlife observation and photography are identified 

in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependent recreation 

activities. These opportunities are provided daily on designated refuge roads 

and trails. Alternative B would expand and enhance these opportunities in many 

different ways, as discussed below. 

Increase trail connectivity and improve trail quality

Although the refuge provides 31 miles of roads and trails to visitors and an 

additional 10 miles of seasonal cross-country ski trail, many of these trails are 

isolated from each other. Visitors 

to Canaan Valley are looking for 

an outdoor adventure paired with 

wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography, similar to what they 

enjoy on neighboring public lands. 

Although our neighbors may have a 

different mission than the Service 

does, the refuge wanted to make an 

effort in this alternative to connect 

some of the refuge’s trails to provide 

visitors with the kind of wildlifedependent recreation they are seeking. 

Connecting trails, both on and off 

refuge, allows people to travel longer 

distances for a more rigorous outdoor 

experience. Some people would also 

argue that becoming part of a long 

distance trail system offers a higher 

quality recreational experience. 

Longer, connected trails may also 

minimize the need for motorized 

vehicles and could contribute to 

improving air quality. 

Objective 4.3 (Wildlife 

Observation and 

Photography)

Installing bridge over Glade Run

Ken Sturm/USFWS
3-82 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Trail connections proposed in this alternative provide increased access for 

travel by foot, bicycle, and horse. However these uses are still zoned, restricting 

bicycling and horseback riding to some but not all of the refuge’s trails. This 

helps to avoid user conflicts and to maintain the biological integrity of certain 

habitat types on the refuge.

Also in this alternative we propose to improve the quality of the existing refuge 

trail system. Many refuge trails were created on access roads, rail grades or 

skid roads for logging. They were not necessarily designed for long term use and 

stability. The refuge will look at these old routes and seek ways to improve them. 

For example, we might make trails more stable, easier to traverse, easier to 

maintain, or more interesting. We also developed a list of criteria for determining 

whether current or future trails are compatible with refuge purposes. These 

criteria are used to evaluate proposed re-routed trail segments and the 

development of new trails. Two criteria on the list include: (1) Route provides an 

opportunity to view a variety of habitats and wildlife and (2) the route has a low 

potential for fragmenting habitat or disturbing wildlife populations. For a full 

list of the criteria, see the compatibility determination for wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation in appendix B. The 

goal of this effort is not to close trails, but to make them more sustainable. We 

will also take advantage of opportunities to couple habitat restoration work with 

managing or creating new public use trails.

Also in alternative B, we propose to name the new trail that will connect 

Swinging Bridge to Cortland Road after Chris Clower. Chris was a career 

Service employee who supervised the West Virginia Field Office in Elkins from 

1980 until he died of brain cancer in 1996. Chris was a conservationist who was 

committed to protecting wetlands across the state of West Virginia. He was an 

avid sportsman who loved woodcock hunting and he spent many falls combing 

the valley in search of this elusive game bird. So great was his love for the valley 

that his ashes were scattered there after he died. Chris was an integral member 

of the Canaan Valley Task Force, a group of federal agencies, local businesses, 

and conservation organizations who met regularly to discuss how to protect the 

wetlands of Canaan Valley. In the end, the group agreed that creating a national 

wildlife refuge would best accomplish that task. Chris, who was also a veteran of 

the Marines and was injured in Vietnam, was instrumental in garnering public 

support for the Canaan Valley refuge even before it was created. During the 

1980’s he worked with other Service employees to reach out to local community 

groups and organizations to explain the benefits of protecting wetlands and 

establishing a national wildlife refuge. Naming a public use facility after Chris 

will ensure that current and future visitors will not forget who he was and what 

he did for the valley’s wetlands. 

Cheat Mountain Salamander

Cheat Mountain salamander populations are located on the southern end of 

the refuge, where White Grass Ski Touring Center (White Grass) operates 

a commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing operation on refuge 

land. Research related to the salamander has shown that logging roads and 

some heavily traveled hiking trails can serve as barriers to Cheat Mountain 

salamander movement and therefore can reduce genetic dispersal. Conditions 

related to blocking movements for salamanders appear to be related to increased 

temperature and humidity resulting from an open tree canopy as well as the 

removal of vegetation and leaf litter through public use activities creating bare 

soil conditions. The cross country ski trails that White Grass maintains are not 

used outside the ski season for public use and are not heavily traveled. Therefore 

excessive trampling resulting in the removal of litter and vegetation to create 

bare dirt surfaces does not occur on these trails. In addition, both Powderline 

and Three-Mile trails are narrow and have partial canopy cover providing 

shading and cooling effects to the trail surface. 
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-83

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

The refuge will implement measures to improve habitat on these trails for the 

Cheat Mountain salamander. One method we propose is planting native trees 

on the edges of the trails to increase canopy cover. Increasing canopy cover will 

help improve leaf litter cover and decrease light penetration to the forest floor. 

The Powderline Trail and a section of Three-Mile Trail, cross known occupied 

Cheat Mountain salamander habitat. These trails are old logging roads and 

are groomed in the winter to a 4-ft. width. Maintenance during spring and 

fall includes the removal of fallen trees and branches, as regulated by a refuge 

special use permit. In 2009, the MNF initiated a study to design more effective 

road and trail maintenance activities to benefit Cheat Mountain salamander 

populations (Pauley and Waldron 2008). We will consult closely with the USFS, 

Dr. Pauley and our Service Ecological Services Field Office to discuss the results 

and implications of this research to refuge trails. In the future, the refuge would 

also consider other options such as replacing trail segments with boardwalks 

to further facilitate salamander movement across trails. This action is one of 

the recommended management guidelines in the recovery plan for this species 

(USFWS 1991). Interpretive signs posted in the rehabilitated areas would 

highlight the habitat improvement work for the Cheat Mountain salamander. 

Boating

Canoes and kayaks are popular means of accessing the Blackwater River and 

experiencing the refuge. Non-motorized boating provides visitors with different 

opportunities to participate in wildlife observation, photography and fishing. 

The primitive boat access sites at Timberline Road, Old Timberline Road, and at 

the Camp 70 Road pullout facilitate this use. In alternative B we would further 

facilitate this use by improving current access sites.

Delta 13 Road/Camp 70 Loop

This road is currently an open, but unmaintained public road and is in major 

disrepair. It leads to a loop trail open to pedestrian travel, biking, and horseback 

riding. There is interest from the community and stakeholders to keep Delta 13 

and the connecting loop open as a trail for pedestrians, biking, and horseback 

riding.

This alternative proposes to pursue abandonment of Delta 13 by the state. 

Maintenance of the roadway would then become the responsibility of the refuge. 

If abandoned, the roadway would be closed to motorized vehicle use and would 

be rehabilitated to prevent further erosion, to encourage re-vegetation, and to 

provide improved access for non-motorized multiple use (pedestrian, bicycling, 

and horseback riding). By not upgrading the road for vehicle use, the refuge 

would save construction and reduce maintenance costs, lessen environmental 

impacts, and improve the quality of the visitors experience for those participating 

in approved public uses. Furthermore, closing the road to vehicles would 

enhance its value as a high quality multi-use wildlife observation trail. Vehicle 

use currently degrades the visitor’s experience directly through encounters with 

vehicles on the road and indirectly through erosion and muddy trail conditions 

perpetuated by vehicle access. Also, there are a number of vernal pools on the 

road that are used by amphibians during the breeding season. Instituting a road 

closure for vehicular traffic would allow us to preserve these pools for amphibian 

use, and use them for educational and interpretive purposes, while still allowing 

public access by non-motorized means. 

In the interim, we also propose to establish the width of the state’s right of way 

on Delta 13/Camp 70 Loop. Our concern is that many vehicles drive well outside 

the state right of way and onto refuge land in order to avoid the deep, water-filled 
3-84 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

ruts in the main road, thus expanding the area that is affected by vehicle traffic. 

Once we identify the boundaries for the right-of-way we can mark them so that 

vehicles will be prohibited from going outside the right-of-way and destroying 

additional wildlife habitat. 

Freeland Tract

The Freeland tract will be closed to public hunting, fishing, and walking with 

dogs, to promote a quality wildlife observation/education experience without 

other competing public uses. However, due to the refuge’s concern with deer 

impacts to plant communities, particularly the rare conifer wetland community 

on the Freeland Tract, we will permit special hunts. These hunts may include 

youth hunts and a special hunt for the physically disabled. We may also permit 

limited open hunts during the regular season should browse damage indicate that 

closure of this tract has exacerbated deer damage. Decisions on types of hunts 

permitted on the Freeland Tract will be made annually and may include opening 

up this tract to one week of public hunting while closing it down to other public 

uses. 

Strategies

In addition to alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Continue to allow visitors to walk with dogs on refuge trails, except on the 

Freeland tract trails, but leashes must be no longer than 8 feet. For hunting 

dogs see hunt regulations.

■ Convert the special use permit for commercial cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing on the refuge to a concession, pursuant to Director’s Order 139 

and 50 C.F.R. 25.61. Conduct additional NEPA analysis if required.

■ Construct an interpretive kiosk, parking area and viewing platform on A-frame 

Road at the beginning of the refuge boundary.

■ Allow overnight parking by permit on Forest Road 80 for visitors accessing 

and camping in Dolly Sods. Camping on the road or anywhere on the refuge is 

prohibited.

■ Revegetate edges of the Powderline Trail and part of Three-Mile Trail to 

improve habitat for Cheat Mountain salamanders.

■ Increase monitoring to determine how Cheat Mountain salamanders are using 

the White Grass trails that transect known salamander habitat. Implement 

other conservation measures, such as raising sections of the trails or installing 

diverters under the trails, if future research finds these actions beneficial. 

Continue monitoring to determine whether the animals are using this 

infrastructure to move under the trails.

■ Close the Freeland Tract to public hunting (except for special deer 

hunts), fishing, and walking with dogs, to provide additional, high-quality 

opportunities for wildlife viewing and study.

■ Coordinate with CVI and other partners to connect Swinging Bridge trail to 

Cortland Road. Map B-4 shows the northern section of this connection and two 

potential routes for the southern connection. A final decision on the southern 

section will be made as we gather more information about compatibility.
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-85

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

■ Pursue transfer of the Beall Bridge and the adjoining property to the Service 

■ Connect the Beall trails to the Middle Valley Trails and allow access for 

bicycle, horse, and pedestrians. 

■ Identify boat access points on refuge brochures and maps. 

■ Work with White Grass to improve trail signs to encourage visitors to stay on 

designated ski trails while on the refuge. 

■ Consider rerouting or modifying steep trails to make them more stable and to 

minimize erosion. 

■ Identify and mark the boundaries for the state’s right-of-way on Delta 13/Camp 

70 Road so as to prevent vehicles from driving on refuge lands. 

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval:

■ Construct a photo/observation blind along the trail at the end of A-Frame Rd. 

■ Construct an interpretive area where A-frame Road enters the refuge.

■ Initiate discussions with the state park about the possibility of connecting the 

refuge Visitor Center to Canaan Valley Resort State Park via a trail.

■ Work with Tucker County Trails on a connection between the Camp 70 loop 

trail and Brown Mountain Overlook Trail. When that connection is made, 

permit bicycle and pedestrian access on the western portion of the Brown 

Mountain Overlook Trail only.

■ Install kiosk and directional signs to direct visitors toward boat access points.

■ If monitoring efforts and new research conclude that salamanders are not 

crossing the White Grass trails that transect their habitat, work with White 

Grass to discuss closing or relocating the trails. 

Within 10 to 15 years of CCP approval:

■ Improve two launch sites for canoes, kayaks, or other hand-launched boats at 

Old Timberline Road and the Camp 70 Road pullout.

Throughout the life of the CCP:

■ Coordinate with adjacent land owners to form a “Heart of the Highlands” trail 

system, which would promote trail connectivity among public and private lands 

throughout the region. 

■ Work with WV Department of Transportation to gain jurisdiction over the 

Delta 13/Camp 70 Road so the Service can repair and maintain it as a trail 

open to pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle use.
3-86 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Provide environmental education and interpretation opportunities that foster 

stewardship of the environment and reflect refuge priorities, including managing 

for migratory birds, endangered species, and wetlands. 

Rationale

With additional staff requested under this alternative, the refuge would have the 

ability and resources to expand its environmental education and interpretation 

programs. This would allow the refuge to reach more teachers and students 

every year. 

The visitor center facilitates the six priority public uses by providing a place 

for hunters to obtain permits, maps, and other information; for anglers to 

obtain information on river access and fishing locations; and for photographers 

and wildlife observers to obtain information on refuge trails. The visitor 

center also offers interpretive exhibits, videos, maps, and other resources for 

orienting visitors to Canaan Valley refuge and for educating them about the 

local ecosystem. Overall, the visitor center is a great asset to the refuge and 

community. Currently there is only one permanent staff member who is dedicated 

to operating the visitor center on a part-time basis. Although this staff member is 

supported by volunteers and seasonal staff, the refuge has struggled at times to 

keep the visitor center open just four days a week. In this alternative we propose 

to focus staff and volunteer resources on keeping the visitor center open daily 

during peak seasons. 

Supporting continued use of cross-country ski trails in partnership with White 

Grass permits expanded opportunities for environmental education and outreach 

during the winter months. Annually, 4,000-5,000 visitors ski on White Grass and 

refuge cross-country ski trails. As a condition of their special use permit, staff 

at White Grass organize winter trail walks for the public on a variety of refuge 

related and environmental topics. Typically, refuge staff members serve as the 

walk leader for one or two of these organized walks. Additionally the refuge 

has hired seasonal interns to develop and lead environmental education walks 

from the White Grass lodge. The use of the ski trails and White Grass operation 

contributes to the Service’s mission for environmental education, interpretation, 

and wildlife observation and photography. Through this collaborative effort 

the refuge reaches hundreds of visitors each year during the winter, which is 

typically a time of low visitation.

The refuge will continue to encourage volunteers to take the lead with off-site 

programs. This enables the refuge staff to stay on the refuge and give priority to 

on-site programs. 

Objective 4.4 (Expansion of 

Environmental Education 

and Interpretation)

Winter wildlife walk at White Grass Ski Center

USFWS
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-87

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Strategies

In addition to alternative A:

Within 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Hire a new park ranger (GS 7/9) to support expanded programs and expanded 

Visitor Center hours. 

■ Double the number of students using the refuge annually.

■ Develop a self-guided interpretive trail on the Freeland Tract.

■ Present at least three off-site exhibits and three off-site programs annually, 

provided they are largely run by volunteers. 

■ Continue the partnership with White Grass Ski Touring Center to organize 

and conduct interpretive walks during winter months.

■ Develop a professional traveling exhibit.

■ Offer 30-50 on-site interpretive programs annually.

■ Open the visitor center seven days per week during times of peak visitation 

and at least three days per week during the rest of the year, but more if we can 

obtain volunteers and students to help staff the center.

■ Design and construct or re-allocate space to designate a larger meeting room 

in the vicinity of the visitor center. The room should have the capacity to 

accommodate 100 seated people. 

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval:

■ With additional staff, develop and present at least three environmental 

education teacher workshops annually, in line with state education standards.

■ With additional staff, advertise and present 12 or more field trips for school 

children on the refuge per year. Develop programs for various primary and 

middle school age children (grade K-1, 2-3, 4-5, and 6-8) that teachers may 

request. 

■ Plan and construct an environmental education pavilion (with electricity if 

possible) and an attached storage room for equipment at the Beall Trail, near 

the Blackwater River. This would provide a sheltered area for groups that are 

studying outdoors. The design should include restrooms, either portable or 

permanent. 

■ Determine the need for a floating platform on the Blackwater River for student 

river studies and if needed, design and construct platform. 

■ Expand the refuge’s reach to communities that are within an hour’s drive of 

the refuge, such as Elkins, Oakland, and/or Petersburg, by presenting six to 

eight programs in these school districts per year.

■ Develop additional interpretive signage for other trails and kiosks.

■ Develop one reception area for the combined needs of the office and visitor 

center. Responsibility for staffing the reception area would be shared by 

full and part time visitor services staff and by administrative staff whenever 

volunteers are not available.
3-88 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B. The Service-Preferred Alternative (Focal Species)

Collaborate with partners to promote the natural resources of Canaan Valley and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Increase participation in events with local partners to advocate resource 

conservation and stewardship and to promote the mission of the Refuge System 

Rationale

Public outreach would improve recognition of the refuge, the Refuge System, 

and the Service among neighbors, local leaders, conservation organizations, 

and elected officials, thus generating support for conservation in the region. An 

annual public open house would allow the refuge to present to the public the 

refuge’s accomplishments and the public would have a chance to ask questions 

and make comments. This would also allow for regular, continual dialogue 

between the public and the refuge. 

Strategies

In addition to alternative A:

■ Hold an annual public open house, preferably in the fall.

Increase public awareness and attract visitors to Canaan Valley and the 

refuge through various forms of media, including local television, the Internet, 

newspapers, and promotional advertising.

Rationale

Same as alternative A

Strategies

Same as alternative A

GOAL 5

Objective 5.1 (Outreach)

Objective 5.2 

(Communication)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-89

Map 3-4 Alternative B – Proposed Habitat Management
3-90 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative B – Public Use Map 3-5
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-91

Map 3-6 Alternative B – Hunt Map
3-92 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative C. Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public Uses

In this alternative, most differences are reflected in the public use objectives for 

increasing access and infrastructure to support priority public uses. Within the 

biological objectives differences are more subtle and emphasize early successional 

habitat management over forest stand improvement. Recommendations for 

funding allocations reflect the de-emphasis of forest restoration. Although the 

Biological Integrity and Diversity policy would still guide some management 

of the forested and unique wetland plant communities, this management would 

mostly be in the form of protection and conservation rather than restoration to 

actively encourage historical plant communities and processes. 

Two strategies which are common to all objectives under this alternative are:

■ Increased invasive species monitoring and control operations. With an increase 

in public access and infrastructure development we anticipate a greater need 

for monitoring and control of invasive plants. This would relate to an increase 

in staff time and station funding related to this activity and would reduce time 

and funding in other biological program areas.

■ A monitoring plan would be developed to evaluate the increased infrastructure 

for public use on refuge resources. Initially this would be limited to measurable 

impacts to trail conditions, plant communities, erosion and other physical 

indices. However, we would work to conduct and encourage additional research 

on changes in wildlife behavior, distribution, nest success, fitness, and other 

aspects of the wildland/human interface which could lead to more informed 

decisions on how public access and use affects the resources the refuge was 

established to protect.

Under this alternative, we would create a trail that runs from the western side of 

the refuge to the eastern side of the refuge, in addition to the Swinging Bridge to 

Cortland Road trail proposed in alternative B that would take visitors from the 

north end of the refuge to the south end of the refuge. We would allow increased 

use in the off trail use zone and we would maintain the Camp 70/Delta 13 road for 

vehicular use. Similar to alternative B, we would convert our two term positions 

(park ranger and administrative assistant) into full time, permanent positions, 

and we would add a refuge operations specialist position and a permanent 

seasonal maintenance worker. However, in order to support the expanded visitor 

services program in this alternative, we would add another permanent park 

ranger position instead of a biological technician. Under this alternative we would 

expect a 20 percent increase in visitor use, because of the additional trail and 

other visitor services-related projects.

Map 3-7 illustrates the habitat management strategies for alternative C, 

map 3-8 illustrates the public use strategies and map 3-9 illustrates the hunting 

strategies. 

Maintain and perpetuate the ecological integrity of the Canaan Valley wetland complex 

to ensure a healthy and diverse wetland ecosystem providing a full range of natural 

processes, community types, and native floral and faunal diversity.

Alternative C. 

Emphasis on 

Expanding Priority 

Public Uses

Introduction

GOAL 1
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-93

Alternative C. Emphasis on Expanding Priority Pubic Uses

Develop an index of ecological integrity to perpetuate and restore the biological 

integrity, diversity and environmental health for the 5,573 acre refuge wetland 

complex and prioritize management actions to ensure that the index improves 

limit invasive plant infestation to standards established by NatureServe, and 

limit excessive deer browse which inhibits natural succession and regeneration. 

Management would emphasize and reflect the composition, function, and diversity 

of this habitat type as it would occur under natural environmental influences.

Rationale

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 1.1. 

With this alternative’s focus on maximizing compatible public uses, greater 

emphasis is placed on providing opportunities for recreation and wildlife 

observation at the expense of maximizing biological integrity. All of the 

alternatives call for the restoration of areas where surface flow and soil 

stabilization are affected by past land use practices. In this alternative, however, 

we consider the option of joining trail construction to restoration projects. Where, 

for example, wetland or stream restoration is implemented, a trail may be added 

to the restoration design. 

Opening new roads on the refuge for the deer hunting seasons may increase 

harvest of deer. A primary management objective for the refuge is to maintain 

the deer population within the valley’s ecological carrying capacity. Today’s 

deer hunters typically do not travel more than 0.5 – 1 mile from their motorized 

vehicle to take deer (Keenan et al. 2008). New hunter access roads increase the 

land area covered by the typical hunter and may subsequently increase the deer 

harvest.

Strategies

In addition to strategies listed under alternative B, Objective 1.1:

Within 3 to 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Promote increased deer harvest by opening vehicle access to southern Middle 

Ridge. Roads that would be evaluated for opening are the southern portion 

of Middle Valley Trail to Sand Run, the Blackwater View Trail, and the 

unimproved road connecting the Beall Bridge to the Geary tract.

Manage and protect 132 acres of wetland conifer forest and woodland to 

perpetuate their associated flora and fauna, prevent inundation by beaver activity 

for over 10% of the land area of these communities for greater than 2 years, and 

conduct restoration activities where practical to ensure regeneration, natural 

succession, and persistence of these communities. Benefiting species of concern 

include balsam fir, Blackburnian warbler, Canada warbler, and Indiana bat.

Rationale

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 1.2.

This alternative seeks to balance restoration of biological integrity with 

providing public use opportunities. Therefore, spruce seedlings for replanting 

forested wetlands would be acquired with funding from grants and partnerships 

rather than designating station funds to the project. Beaver trapping to reduce 

inundation of sensitive forested communities would be conducted solely by 

members of the public through special use permits. The emphasis for locations 

of deer exclosures would be placed on providing educational opportunities for 

visitors rather than on locations for research and management outcomes.

Objective 1.1 (Forested, 

Shrub and Herbaceous 

Wetlands and Open Water)

Objective 1.2 (Forested

Wetlands)
3-94 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative C. Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public Uses

Strategies 

In addition to strategies under alternative B, Objective 1.2:

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Funding and facilitation of the propagation and planting of balsam fir and red 

spruce seedlings would rely solely upon grants and partnerships.

■ Deer exclosures built to protect balsam fir seedlings from deer browsing would 

be visible from public use trails for increased educational opportunities.

■ Public opportunities for beaver trapping would be emphasized over contractor 

or staff trapping efforts in all refuge areas to prevent prolonged inundation of 

rare plant communities.

Manage and protect 5,058 acres of wet shrublands and herbaceous wetlands to 

perpetuate their associated flora and fauna, prevent inundation by beaver activity 

for over 10% of the land area of these communities for greater than 2 years, and 

conduct restoration activities where practical to ensure regeneration, natural 

succession, and persistence of these communities. Benefiting species of concern 

include alder flycatcher, American woodcock, pink-edged sulfur, and many 

herbaceous wetland plant species.

Rationale

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 1.3, and this alternative, Objective 1.2.

Strategies

In addition to strategies listed under alternative B, Objective 1.3:

■ Public opportunities for beaver trapping would be emphasized over contractor 

or staff trapping efforts in all refuge areas to prevent prolonged inundation of 

rare plant communities.

Objective 1.3 (Shrub and 

Herbaceous Wetlands)

Canada warbler

Paul Fusco
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-95

Alternative C. Emphasis on Expanding Priority Pubic Uses

Manage and protect 55 miles of stream and a dynamic beaver pond system 

(currently 85 acres) for cold water fish species and breeding and foraging 

migratory birds by ensuring adequate riparian cover and allowing the process 

of beaver pond formation and succession to occur naturally. Benefiting species 

include brook trout, redside dace, American black duck, American bittern, and 

wood duck.

Rationale

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 1.4.

This alternative seeks to balance maintaining biological integrity with providing 

public use opportunities. Access to ponds would not be restricted beyond 

standard public use regulations. Refuge staff would provide increased outreach, 

education, and interpretation related to disturbance to sensitive wildlife species 

tied to aquatic habitats, which can be affected by increased access. 

Strategies 

See strategies listed for alternative B, Objective 1.4.

Establish a Research Natural Area to participate in the national effort to 

preserve examples of major wetland ecosystem types, provide research and 

educational opportunities for scientists and others in the observation, study, and 

monitoring of the environment; and contribute to the national effort to preserve a 

full range of genetic and behavioral diversity for native plants and animals.

Rationale

See rational for alternative B, Objective 1.5.

Under this alternative the refuge would still seek to designate an RNA within 

the core wetland complex, however the size would be reduced to minimize 

social consequences for public hunting. Under alternative C the RNA would 

be designated as the Central Fen RNA (CFRNA) and would consist of 593 

acres, compared with 754 acres in alternative B. It would be bordered by the 

Blackwater River to the west, Glade Run to the north, Middle Ridge on the east 

and drainage through the wetland from Middle Ridge on the south. 

Plant communities within the CFRNA would include: 110 acres of herbaceous 

wetland, 416 acres of shrub wetland, 11 acres of forested wetland and 8 acres of 

open water/aquatic habitat. Other plant communities would include shrubland 

(7 acres), and old field (41 acres). The upland types are included in the proposed 

RNA for practical purposes as they are physically located within the larger 

wetland complex and would be administratively difficult to cut out of the 

proposed boundary. 

Of the wetland types, the shrub wetland communities would be broken out to 

include 277 acres of blueberry, 72 acres of St John’s wort, 39.8 acres of speckled 

alder, 23 acres of black chokeberry, and one acre of spirea tall shrub thicket. 

It would be approximately 92% wetland and 8% upland habitat. As is the case 

with the RNA proposal for alternative B, the shrubland habitat within the 

CFRNA would largely consist of narrow bands of alder and spirea or scattered 

shrub stands within moss or emergent wetland communities. Therefore habitat 

suitability for hunted species such as American woodcock would be low and the 

designation of the CFRNA would have little effect on the hunter opportunity for 

game species.

Strategies

See strategies for alternative B Objective 1.5.

Objective 1.4 (Open Water / 

Aquatic)

Objective 1.5 (Research 

Natural Area)
3-96 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative C. Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public Uses

Perpetuate the ecological integrity of upland northern hardwood and northern 

hardwood-conifer forests to sustain native wildlife and plant communities, including 

species of conservation concern, for the development of late-successional forest 

characteristics, and to perpetuate the biological diversity and integrity of the upland 

forest ecosystem.

Restore the 5,273 acres of northern hardwood forest to an unfragmented 

condition within and between refuge and adjacent lands (canopy cover greater 

than 80%, forest patches with a minimum distance of 600 m to non-forest edges, 

and maximum extent of forest acres) to maximize nesting and foraging habitat 

for forest interior migratory birds and other species of conservation concern. 

Benefiting species include scarlet tanager, black-throated blue warbler, Eastern 

wood peewee, black bear, bobcat, and fisher.

Rationale

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 2.1.

With this alternative’s focus on maximizing compatible public uses, greater 

emphasis is placed on providing opportunities for recreation and wildlife 

observation at the expense of maximizing biological integrity. Therefore, 

achieving forest structural diversity (dependent upon reaching target deer 

population) would rely on maximizing hunter opportunities to reduce browse 

pressure on tree and shrub saplings. 

Strategies

Same as alternative B, except:

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ The propagating and planting of native tree seedlings would rely on grant 

funding, partnerships, and volunteers to support the restoration program.

■ Natural regeneration of woody species and development of mid-story shrub and 

sapling structure within northern hardwood forests would rely on increased 

deer harvest in recently logged forest rather than planting red spruce or 

hardwood seedlings.

Restore structural and compositional diversity in the hardwood forest understory 

and mid-story (1-12 cm dbh size class) to provide nesting and foraging habitat for 

species of conservation concern such as black-throated blue and Canada warblers 

and maximize the persistence of herbaceous plant populations such as glade 

spurge and forest seep communities. Target structure and composition includes 

increasing the mid-story stem density, mid-story diversity index, and cover and 

diversity of herbaceous species.

Rationale

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 2.2, and this alternative, Objective 2.1.

Strategies 

Same as alternative B, Objective 2.2, except:

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Management activities would focus on improving access and hunter pressure 

for white-tailed deer harvest to reduce browse pressure and increase survival 

of shrub and tree saplings. No silvicultural treatments would be made to mimic 

canopy gap dynamics for increasing understory vegetative structure.

GOAL 2

Objective 2.1 (Northern 

Hardwood Forest)

Objective 2.2 (Northern 

Hardwood Forest 

Understory)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-97

Alternative C. Emphasis on Expanding Priority Pubic Uses

Restore late-successional forest characteristics in the northern hardwood forest 

to improve habitat for the threatened Cheat Mountain salamander, the West 

Virginia northern flying squirrel, and other amphibian, mammal, and migratory 

bird species of conservation concern. Target characteristics include increasing 

density of snags, increasing downed coarse woody debris, and increasing the 

density of large trees (>50cm dbh).

Rationale 

See rationale under alternative B, Objective 2.3.

In the other alternatives, we propose silvicultural management to mimic natural 

process which develop late-successional forest characteristics. In this alternative, 

emphasis would be placed on managing for hunter and recreational visitor 

opportunities. Late-successional characteristics would develop over time without 

management intervention, albeit more slowly. In this alternative, we would rely 

on natural processes to improve late-successional sere habitat, achieved over a 

greater period of time.

Strategies

Same as alternative B, Objective 2.3, except:

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Management would be passive to allow for the successional development of 

mature forest characteristics. No silvicultural operations would be conducted 

to mimic late successional forest characteristics.

Advance late-successional characteristics in 214 acres of coniferous and mixed 

coniferous forests to maximize breeding and foraging habitat for Blackburnian 

warbler, black-throated blue warbler, saw-whet owl, fisher, and other wildlife 

species of special concern. Target characteristics include increasing density of 

large diameter spruce trees and snags, conifer canopy cover, cover of coarse 

woody debris, and increasing mid-story stem density (1 – 12 cm dbh size class). 

We would strive to achieve 50% occupancy by Blackburnian warblers in all 

spruce-dominated forests larger than 2.5 acres and increase occupancy by blackthroated blue warblers by 5% over the next 15 years.

Rationale 

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 2.4 and this alternative, Objective 2.3.

Strategies

Same as alternative B, Objective 2.4, except:

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Management would be passive to allow for the successional development of 

mature forest characteristics. No silvicultural operations would be conducted 

to mimic late successional forest characteristics.

■ Continue to allow a limited number public use trails and public access in 

spruce-dominated forests. Disturbance to habitat and establishment of invasive 

species in this sensitive habitat type would be reduced by informing public 

users through education and interpretation programs rather than limiting 

access.

Objective 2.3 (Mature 

Northern Hardwood Forest)

Objective 2.4 (Conifer 

Spruce / Mixed Forest)
3-98 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative C. Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public Uses

Expand the areal extent of understory and canopy spruce by at least 25% in 

conifer and hardwood dominant forests to increase the potential future sprucedominated forest and habitat for high elevation, conifer-forest dependent species 

such as Blackburnian warbler, black-throated blue warbler, saw-whet owl, fisher, 

West Virginia northern flying squirrel, and Cheat Mountain salamander. 

Rationale

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 2.5:

Spruce restoration (planting seedlings and silvicultural operations) would occur 

in high priority locations, with greater emphasis placed on providing educational 

opportunities for visitors and less on locating restoration sites for research and 

management outcomes. 

As in Objectives 1.2 and 2.1 of this alternative, spruce seedling for replanting 

forested wetlands would be acquired with funding from grants and partnerships 

rather than designating station funds to the project. 

Strategies 

Same as alternative B, Objective 2.5, except:

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Emphasis for spruce restoration sites would be located adjacent to public use 

trails to increase education and outreach opportunities.

■ Propagation and planting of native tree seedlings would rely on grant funding 

and partnerships to support the restoration program.

Provide and promote through active management, a diversity of successional habitats 

in upland and wetland-edge shrubland, old field, grassland, and hardwood communities 

to sustain early successional and shrubland specialists such as golden-winged 

warbler, American woodcock, brown thrasher, Eastern towhee, field sparrow, and 

other species of concern. 

Manage 114 acres of successional aspen communities on a 15-20 year rotational 

basis so that 20% is continually maintained in early successional stages (0-15 year 

class) with a high stem density and less than 60% herbaceous ground cover, to 

perpetuate and potentially expand and improve aspen habitat for golden-winged 

warbler, American woodcock, brown thrasher, Eastern towhee, and other priority 

migratory bird species. 

Rationale 

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 3.1

Strategies 

Same as alternative B, Objective 3.1

Use accepted silvicultural practices within 1,130 acres of forest edge areas to 

create openings, promote understory development, and develop and sustain 

breeding and foraging habitat for American woodcock, Eastern towhee, brown 

thrasher, Canada warbler and other species of concern. 

Rationale

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 3.2.

Strategies

Same as alternative B, Objective 3.1

Objective 2.5 (Conifer 

Spruce / Mixed Forest)

GOAL 3

Objective 3.1 (Forested 

Wetland – Aspen 

Woodlands)

Objective 3.2 (Northern 

Hardwood Forest)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-99

Alternative C. Emphasis on Expanding Priority Pubic Uses

Allow natural succession to occur in 2,482 acres of old fields, manage 190 acres 

of grasslands and maintain 853 acres of shrub communities 2-10 feet tall, 

interspersed with herbaceous openings to improve habitat for high priority, 

shrub-dependent birds of conservation concern such as golden-winged warbler, 

American woodcock, Eastern towhee, brown thrasher, and field sparrow. 

Rationale

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 3.3

This objective would emphasize maintaining existing, 

and managing for additional, early successional 

habitats in shrub and old field communities to 

provide the traditional hunting opportunities and 

habitat for early successional-dependent migratory 

bird species. This objective differs from alternative B 

(Objective 3.3) in that 20% of old field habitat would 

be maintained as old field rather than allowed or 

encouraged to move through succession. Additionally, 

we propose to establish at least two early 

successional habitat management demonstration 

areas for research, education, and interpretation.

Strategies

Same as alternative B, Objective 3.3, except:

Within 3 to 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Establish at least two demonstration areas, easily accessible and visible from 

public access roads or trails, to demonstrate early successional management 

techniques and wildlife habitat response.

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Manage 20% of old field habitats through rotational mowing to set back shrub 

encroachment and maintain an open, old field habitat.

Manage 341 acres of grassland habitat by maintaining suitable herbaceous 

ground cover, bare ground coverage, vegetation height, grass-forb ratios, and 

limiting invasive plant establishment to maximize breeding and migration habitat 

for grasshopper sparrow, Henslow’s sparrow, bobolinks, and other priority 

grassland dependent birds.

Rationale

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 3.4.

To continue to provide grassland habitat for breeding grassland-dependent bird 

species such as bobolinks, grasshopper sparrows, meadowlarks, and Henslow’s 

sparrows and to maximize opportunities for viewing these species, we propose 

to maintain 341 acres as managed grassland. This objective mirrors the acreage 

managed for grasslands in alternative A, Objective 3.3. It is an increase of 

acreage managed for grassland habitat proposed under alternative B and 

alternative D. 

Objective 3.3 (Shrubland 

and Old Field)

Objective 3.4 (Managed 

Grasslands)

Canaan Valley NWR

USFWS
3-100 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative C. Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public Uses

The success of these fields as productive grassland bird habitat is partly 

dependent upon the grassland character of adjacent fields. Grasslands under 

50 acres would be maintained in this alternative provided that obligate species 

continue to use and are productive in managed areas. If housing construction 

alters the size of the adjacent grasslands, the refuge grasslands may no longer 

provide suitable habitat. If the grasslands lose their value as grassland habitat 

for breeding or migrating birds, the refuge proposes to convert the fields to 

shrublands and forest. 

Strategies

Same as alternative B, Objective 3.4 except:

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Manage through a combination of mowing, burning, and haying a total of 341 

acres of grassland habitat.

Visitors of all abilities enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

education to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of Refuge 

habitats, wildlife, and cultural history.

Within 5 years of CCP approval, at least 80 percent of hunters on the refuge will 

report they had a high-quality experience. 

Rationale

Hunting strategies in this alternative would be the same as in alternative B 

except that hunters who want to hunt rabbits on the refuge would be required 

to obtain a special use permit. This would allow the refuge to keep track of any 

Appalachian cottontails found on the refuge. The Appalachian cottontail is a state 

species of special concern and occurs in habitats similar to those found in Canaan 

Valley. The Appalachian cottontail has not been documented on the refuge but is 

likely to occur there. By requiring rabbit hunters to obtain a special use permit, 

we will be able to gather more information on the distribution and abundance of 

Appalachian cottontails on the refuge. 

Strategies

In addition to alternative B:

■ Allow hunting of rabbits only with a special use permit from the refuge in 

order to more closely track the harvest of Appalachian cottontails. Require the 

submission of the skull for positive identification of Appalachian cottontail. We 

would also acquire skulls from road kills to gather further data about species 

presence/abundance.

Same as alternative B

Within 5 years of CCP approval, at least 80 percent of refuge visitors engaged in 

wildlife observation and nature photography will report a high quality experience 

(605 FW 1.6).

Rationale

Maintaining the Camp 70 road for vehicle access would increase handicap access 

into the Valley. 

The North Cross Valley Trial would provide a direct east-west connection from 

Brown Mountain Overlook Trail to A-Frame road. On the east, other roads and 

trails would then connect visitors to the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area, and on the 

west, other trails would connect visitors to CVI and USFS lands. 

GOAL 4

Objective 4.1 (Hunting)

Objective 4.2 (Fishing)

Objective 4.3 (Wildlife 

Observation and 

Photography)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-101

Alternative C. Emphasis on Expanding Priority Pubic Uses

During the public scoping process, some refuge stakeholders expressed concern 

that allowing only hunters to travel off-trail on the refuge constitutes social 

injustice. The refuge has maintained that off trail use is necessary for a quality 

hunt experience and for meeting the biological objectives of the refuge to reduce 

the deer herd. Off trial use for wildlife observation and photography is desirable 

for some visitors, but not necessary for a quality experience or for accomplishing 

specific refuge public use objectives. However, some views and photographs are 

only available off of our established trail system. In order to offer a higher quality 

experience for visitors engaged in wildlife observation and photography, we 

would provide an off trail use zone for this activity. This off-trail use zone would 

only provide pedestrian, cross-county ski and snowshoe access, and would not 

allow off-trail horse or bike use because of the impacts. We will offer this use in a 

time and place where impacts would be minimal and would not threaten sensitive 

habitats and species. By promoting exploration and learning in nature, off trail 

use may help to strengthen the connection between people and nature that has 

withered over the generations. 

Although we would offer an off trail use zone under this alternative, we would 

continue to prohibit off trail use in any other area of the refuge, including the 

White Grass skiing and snowshoeing trails. This can be confusing to visitors 

because off-trail skiing is available on adjacent property within the same trail 

system, and visitors often cannot determine when they are on refuge lands and 

when they are on private property. Although there are currently signs indicating 

the refuge boundary, we propose to improve signage to properly establish the 

distinction between the refuge boundary and restricted access area. 

Off-trail use year round would enable users to experience this portion of the 

refuge during growing and breeding seasons when there are more of a variety of 

animals and plants to observe and photograph.

Strategies

Same as alternative B, except:

■ Work with WV Department of Transportation to abandon the Delta 13/Camp 

70 Road. If they do not abandon the road, the refuge would not repair it. If the 

state does abandon the road, the refuge would reconstruct it to permit vehicles 

to drive into the valley to a parking area. We would consider options for 

improving visitor access, such as installing an accessible observation platform.

■ Create a Cross Valley Trail from Brown Mountain Overlook to A-Frame Road 

utilizing the North Railroad Grade. 

■ Open the entire Brown Mountain Overlook Trail for biking.

■ Allow off-trail use by permit for pedestrian, cross country skiing, and 

snowshoeing access in a designated area on Sundays during the hunting 

season. We would issue a maximum of 25 permits per month to minimize 

wildlife and habitat impacts in this area. If funding and staffing allows, we 

would take the following steps to monitor this area for wildlife disturbance: 

seek funding for a research project to monitor for adverse impacts inside 

and outside of the off trail use area. Information will be analyzed by the 

refuge and compared with other biological data collected. Depending on the 

level of disturbance observed to soil, vegetation, or wildlife, we would modify 

management of the off-trail use area. 
3-102 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative C. Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public Uses

Provide environmental education and interpretation opportunities that foster 

stewardship of the environment and reflect refuge priorities, including managing 

for migratory birds, endangered species, and wetlands. 

Rationale

Alternative C differs from alternative B only in that we would construct the 

Environmental Education Pavilion on Freeland tract rather than on Beall tract. 

This provides an alternative location to evaluate and situates the pavilion on the 

most visited tract on the refuge. 

Opening the Visitor Center seven days a week year round would give visitors 

daily access to the Visitor Center, allowing them to inquire about public use 

opportunities on a daily basis. 

Strategies

Same as alternative B, except:

■ Construct the Environmental Education pavilion on Freeland Tract instead of 

Beall tract.

■ Open the Visitor Center seven days a week all year round.

Collaborate with partners to promote the natural resources of Canaan Valley and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Same as alternative B.

Same as alternative B.

Objective 4.4 

(Environmental Education 

and Interpretation)

GOAL 5

Objective 5.1 (Outreach)

Objective 5.2 

(Communication)

Spruce planting on Middle Ridge with WVU students

Marquette Crockett/USFWS
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-103

Map 3-7 Alternative C – Proposed Habitat Management
3-104 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative C – Public Use Map 3-8
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-105

Map 3-9 Alternative C – Hunt Map
3-106 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative D. Focus on Managing for Historical Habitats

This alternative strives to establish and maintain the ecological integrity of 

natural communities within the refuge. Ecological integrity is defined by 

having all native species present, ecological processes and natural disturbance 

events occurring within their respective distribution, abundance, or frequency, 

and natural range of variability, characteristic of that community type under 

natural conditions. A natural community with high integrity is also defined as 

being resilient and able to recover from severe disturbance events (Roe and 

Ruesink 2004). Management under alternative D would range from passive, or 

“letting nature take its course,” to actively manipulating vegetation to create or 

hasten the development of mature forest structural conditions shaped by natural 

disturbances. Under this alternative, no particular wildlife species would be a 

focus of management. 

As a priority, we would implement studies, consult experts, and conduct literature 

reviews, to further refine our knowledge of disturbance patterns and structural 

conditions in both wetland and upland natural communities. Our wetland 

management would also pursue restoration projects where past land uses have 

altered historical plant communities or hinder natural hydrological flow and 

wetlands development, such as the presence of rail grades along the valley floor. 

In refuge uplands, we would manage to restore the forest communities predicted 

as the “potential natural vegetation,” using both Kuchler’s delineations of 

types and ecological land units (ELUs), as the basis to determine which types 

are best -suited and most capable of growing on these sites (Kuchler 1964; 

Anderson 1999). Our management would be designed to create similar mature 

stand structural conditions to those that would be expected from natural 

disturbance events which shaped the Central Appalachian Forest landscape. 

These disturbance events include infrequent fires, ice storms, and smallpatch blowdowns. We would manage forest age-class, species, and diameter 

distribution, understory development, amount of dead and dying and cavity 

trees, large and old trees, coarse woody debris, and canopy closure as indicated 

by historical accounts of the pre-logging era in Canaan Valley (mid 1800’s) and 

as described by experts. Notwithstanding these actions, we would also ensure 

protection of current or future threatened and endangered species, and control 

the establishment and spread of any non-native, invasive species. Introduced 

pests and pathogens, including beech-scale disease, gypsy moth, and hemlock and 

balsam wooly adelgid, may present management issues in the future that require 

intervention. 

The acquisition of the remaining 8,932 acres from willing sellers within the 

current approved refuge acquisition boundary is integral to the success of 

alternative D. Acquiring these remaining acreages would bring the refuge’s 

total land base to a little less than 25,000 acres. Experts have suggested that 

25,000 contiguous acres connected hydrologically and in a relatively undisturbed 

condition, is a reasonable approximation of the minimum size within which 

ecological processes, structure, and function, including the disturbance events 

identified above, could occur naturally (Anderson 1999; Roe and Ruesink 2004). 

Even though acquiring the remaining acreage within the acquisition boundary 

would fall short of the recommended total acreage, it would secure protection of 

approximately 66% of the Canaan Valley watershed, including protecting half of 

the major tributaries of the upper Blackwater River. 

Alternative D. Focus 

on Managing for 

Historical Habitats

Introduction
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-107

Alternative D. Focus on Managing for Historical Habitats

Compared to alternatives B and C proposals for visitor services programs and 

refuge uses, alternative D would limit new infrastructure for wildlife observation, 

photography, and interpretation to already-disturbed areas. Any new 

infrastructure would occur around the refuge headquarters and visitor’s center 

facility, the Freeland tract, and roadside pullouts along A-frame road. However, 

alternative D would enhance hunting and fishing opportunities in similar ways 

as alternative B and C. The refuge would also continue the furbearer trapping 

program under special use permit to emphasize natural furbearer population 

dynamics as well as the protection of rare plant communities. Under this 

alternative we would expect a 10 percent increase in visitor use, which is the 

same as alternative A.

Also under alternative D, we would enhance local community outreach and 

partnerships, continue to support a Friends Group, and provide valuable 

volunteer experiences, just as we do in alternatives B and C. We would also 

promote research and the development of applied management practices to 

sustain and enhance the natural composition, patterns, and processes within their 

natural range in the Central Appalachian Forest.

Similar to alternatives B and C, we would convert our two term positions 

(administrative assistant and park ranger) into full time, permanent positions 

and we would add another permanent park ranger position and a seasonal 

maintenance position. We would also add a law enforcement officer position to 

help enforce stricter limitations on visitor use. 

Map 3-10 illustrates the habitat management strategies for alternative D, 

map 3-11 illustrates the public use strategies. Hunting strategies in alternative D 

are the same as for alternative B. See map 3-6 for details.

Maintain and perpetuate the ecological integrity of the Canaan Valley wetland complex 

to ensure a healthy and diverse wetland ecosystem providing a full range of natural 

processes, community types, and native floral and faunal diversity.

Develop an index of ecological integrity to perpetuate and restore the biological 

integrity, diversity, and environmental health for the 5,573 acre refuge wetland 

complex and prioritize management actions to ensure that the index improves, 

limit invasive plant infestation to standards established by NatureServe, and 

limit excessive deer browse which inhibits natural succession and regeneration. 

Management will emphasize and reflect the composition, function, and diversity 

of this habitat type as it would occur under natural environmental influences.

Rationale 

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 1.1.

Alternative D seeks to maximize the protection and conservation of the valley’s 

natural biodiversity and processes. Inherent in the perpetuation of the valley’s 

natural functioning is the process of natural succession. The once-forested 

watershed is now a mosaic of forest, shrubland, open meadows, old fields, and 

peatlands, with the non-forested communities covering vastly larger extents than 

prior to European settlement and subsequent logging. 

Historical land use practices such as logging and grazing created and 

perpetuated the open meadows and old fields. The open herbaceous character 

and suppression of shrub and tree regeneration of the wetlands has been 

maintained by an overabundant deer population. Woody regeneration observed 

in three wetland deer exclosures in Canaan Valley and the notable lack of woody 

regeneration outside of the exclosures and elsewhere in the wetlands indicates 

that the current deer population exceeds the regenerative capacity of the wetland 

communities. 

GOAL 1

Objective 1.1 (Forested, 

Shrub and Herbaceous 

Wetlands and Open Water)
3-108 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative D. Focus on Managing for Historical Habitats

High deer densities compromise the ecological integrity of ecosystems. 

Increased deer densities reduce overall wildlife habitat quality (Horsley et al. 

2003), plant size, reproductive output (Knight 2003), and vegetation diversity 

(Lathan et al. 2005), and delay establishment of woody species (Marquis 1981). In 

areas where deer density exceeds 20 deer / square mile, deer herbivory is related 

to declines in mid-story bird species (DeCalesta 1994). In Canaan Valley, balsam 

fir is expected to be replaced by red spruce in large part due to deer herbivory 

(Michael 1992b).

Current hunting seasons are set by the WVDNR with Canaan Valley aggregated 

with the remainder of Tucker County as a single management unit. The plant 

community types in Canaan Valley differ from elsewhere in the county largely 

due to the extent of wetland plant communities. Separating the valley from the 

rest of the management unit and establishing hunting seasons responsive to 

the valley’s deer population levels, as this alternative suggests, would allow for 

a more flexible adaptive management program. Working with the WVDNR to 

establish a Canaan Valley management unit, the refuge could more effectively 

ensure that the deer population remains within the ecological carrying capacity 

of the area. Options that could be effected within this special management unit 

include an “earn-a-buck” (requiring doe harvest before receiving a buck harvest 

permit) program, extending deer seasons, extending doe seasons, and hosting 

special muzzleloader hunts during the week prior to the opening of seasons in 

neighboring states. 

The refuge is bordered by two large landowners that currently do not allow deer 

hunting. The Canaan Valley Resort State Park (6,068 acres) and Timberline 

Homeowners Association (2,755 acres) manage over 8,000 acres combined, or 

approximately 25% of the watershed adjacent to the refuge. Controlling high 

density deer populations at small local scales, such as increasing deer harvest on 

the refuge, likely would be ineffective for meeting watershed-level biodiversity 

goals unless there is cooperation of multiple landowners (W.M. Ford personal 

communication 2007). The refuge would seek partnership with the large 

landowners to develop a comprehensive deer management strategy for the valley. 

This strategy would work to include assisting the non-hunting lands to develop 

suitable and appropriate deer management plans. 

Alternatives B and C propose increasing vehicle access to the refuge and 

upgrading or building roads to provide additional vehicle access routes. 

Alternative D, instead, proposes to maintain an appropriate deer density by more 

flexible management and cooperation with neighbors rather than by adding road 

access. Upgrading currently closed roads and re-building former logging roads is 

a costly endeavor to the integrity of the ecosystem. The introduction of limestone 

gravel increases the introduction and spread of invasive exotic plant species, 

directly by importation of seeds in the gravel and indirectly by creating more 

favorable habitat for these exotics. The introduction of most of the non-native 

invasive species occurs where soil has been disturbed. Earthmoving equipment 

carries seeds to the site and soil disturbance provides fertile ground for invasive 

species seeds to take root. Roads bisect and fragment landscapes, preventing 

or inhibiting movement of small animals and altering the microclimate. Surface 

water flow is altered or disrupted, changing the soil moisture regimes in 

soil bordering the roadways. To prevent the acceleration of invasive species 

encroachment and introduction in the refuge, fragmentation of habitat, and 

alteration of hydrologic surface flow, this alternative proposes that no new roads 
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-109

Alternative D. Focus on Managing for Historical Habitats

be built or maintained. Instead, effective deer management would be achieved by 

working with partners and neighbors to develop a comprehensive, adaptable deer 

management program.

Strategies

In addition to the strategies listed for alternative B, Objective 1.1:

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval:

■ Decrease the deer population by providing increased deer hunting seasons 

or other control techniques and working with adjacent large landowners to 

implement site-appropriate deer hunting programs. Success will be based 

on browse damage to successional development and our ability to restore the 

forested community.

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Continue to limit vehicle access to existing, permitted motor vehicle routes 

(current condition).

Manage and protect 131 acres of wetland conifer forest and woodland to 

perpetuate their associated flora and fauna and reflect the composition, function 

and diversity of this habitat type as it would occur under natural environmental 

influences.

Rationale 

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 1.2.

Perpetuation of the biological diversity and integrity is the primary focus of 

this alternative. Perpetuating important, globally rare plant species and plant 

communities would be a high priority of all refuge activities. To ensure that 

funding each year is consistently available and that staff time can be devoted 

to restoration efforts, the refuge would dedicate funds towards the protection, 

cultivation, and planting of balsam fir and red spruce within the station budget. 

Similarly, beaver trapping, which is currently conducted solely by the public 

under special use permit, would be prioritized so that if beaver inundation 

threatens rare plant communities with prolonged inundation, station funds would 

be available to hire contract trappers or to fund refuge staff to conduct the 

trapping.

Strategies 

In addition to strategies listed under alternative B, Objective 1.2:

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Prioritize conifer restoration within station budget to ensure continual funding 

for seedling acquisition, silvicultural procedures and contracts to complete 

project work.

■ Beaver trapping and control would be conducted by refuge staff or contractors 

if public trapping is not sufficient to accomplish management goals.

Objective 1.2 (Forested 

Wetlands)
3-110 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative D. Focus on Managing for Historical Habitats

Manage and protect 5,060 acres of wet shrublands and herbaceous wetlands to 

perpetuate their associated flora and fauna and reflect the composition, function, 

and diversity of this habitat type as it would occur under natural environmental 

influences.

Rationale

See rationale for alternative C, Objective 1.2 and alternative B, Objective 1.1 and 

1.3.

Strategies

In addition to strategies listed under alternative B, Objective 1.1 and 1.3:

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Beaver trapping and control would be conducted by refuge staff or contractors 

if public trapping is not sufficient to accomplish management goals.

Manage and protect 55 miles of stream and headwater tributaries and a dynamic 

beaver pond system (currently 85 acres) to reflect the composition, function, and 

diversity of these habitat types as they would occur under natural environmental 

influences.

Rationale 

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 1.4.

Restoring the riparian buffers increases cold water habitat for redside dace and 

brook trout, fish species of conservation concern. In this alternative focusing on 

biological integrity, we would emphasize riparian restoration by setting a shorter 

time frame for prioritizing restoration locations and increasing the percentage of 

riparian area with suitable canopy cover. Identifying and prioritizing restoration 

locations would redirect staff time and resources towards improving the stream 

habitat. Increase the riparian area for restoration from 10% to 20% area with 

suitable canopy cover in this alternative, again emphasizing the importance of 

ecological integrity and providing habitat function for a cold water fishery.

Objective 1.3 (Shrub and 

Herbaceous Wetlands)

Objective 1.4 (Open Water / 

Aquatic)

American Bittern Gary Zahm/USFWS
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-111

Alternative D. Focus on Managing for Historical Habitats

Strategies

In addition to strategies listed under alternative B, Objective 1.4:

Within 3 to 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Increase canopy cover of 20% of identified priority riparian corridors by 

planting native tree and tall shrub species, using local seed source when 

possible, and allowing the regeneration through natural succession of woody 

species.

Establish a RNA to participate in the national effort to preserve examples of 

major wetland ecosystem types; provide research and educational opportunities 

for scientists and others in the observation, study, and monitoring of the 

environment; and contribute to the national effort to preserve a full range of 

genetic and behavioral diversity for native plants and animals.

Rationale

See rational for alternative B, Objective 1.5.

Under this alternative the same area would be designated as a RNA as in 

alternative B. 

Strategies

See strategies for alternative B, Objective 1.5.

Perpetuate the ecological integrity of upland northern hardwood and northern 

hardwood-conifer forests to sustain native wildlife and plant communities, including 

species of conservation concern, for the development of late-successional forest 

characteristics, and to perpetuate the biological diversity and integrity of upland forest 

ecosystem.

Restore the 6,400 acres of northern hardwood forest to an unfragmented 

condition (canopy cover greater than 80%, forest patches with a minimum 

distance of 600m to non-forest edges, and maximum extent of contiguous forest 

acres) that would reflect the composition, function, and diversity of these habitat 

types as they would occur under natural environmental influences.

Rationale

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 2.1.

The refuge currently manages 6,400 acres of northern hardwood forest, less 

than the minimum target patch size for area-sensitive species. Achieving the 

minimum target patch size requires working with adjacent landowners and 

converting early successional habitats to forest cover. Partnerships to manage 

adjoining forest patches as contiguous forest would increase the effective size of 

the upland forest. In addition to optimizing habitat for forest interior migratory 

bird species, protection of large, contiguous, forest patches benefits far-ranging 

mammals.

Allowing and managing for the natural succession of old fields and shrublands to 

forested cover would increase the total forested acreage on the refuge. Natural 

succession and recruitment of woody species is currently suppressed by refuge 

management and the excessive deer population. Development of forests in 

currently non-forested areas would occur over a longer time than the scope of 

this management plan.

Objective 1.5 (Research 

Natural Area)

GOAL 2

Objective 2.1 (Northern 

Hardwood Forest)
3-112 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative D. Focus on Managing for Historical Habitats

Strategies

In addition to strategies listed under alternative B, Objective 2.1:

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Promote natural regeneration of woody species and development of mid-story 

shrub and sapling structure within northern hardwood forests, by reducing 

excessive deer browse pressure and planting red spruce seedlings. Strategies 

to reduce deer browse may include increasing deer harvest and building deer 

exclosures in target recruitment and regeneration areas.

Within 3 to 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Identify adjacent landowners with forest cover and develop watershed-based 

forest conservation strategies with these partners that will ensure forested 

connectivity between the refuge and adjacent forested lands.

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval:

■ Plant native upland tree seedlings to reduce the area of anthropogenic forest 

gaps by 75%. Priority will be given to planting seedlings grown from local 

seed sources. For local genotypes of seedlings to be available for planting, 

this strategy may include developing nursery capabilities on site or developing 

partnerships with nurseries to grow an adequate supply.

Throughout the Life of the CCP

■ Promote increasing acreage of northern hardwood habitat type by allowing old 

field habitat to develop shrub and tree species recruitment and regeneration. 

This natural succession will reduce forest fragmentation, increase forest 

interior acres, and reduce the “hard” ecological edge habitat that currently 

occurs between the northern hardwood forest type and the toe-slope old field 

meadows. 

Protect and restore structural and compositional diversity in the hardwood 

forest understory and mid-story (1-12 cm dbh) to develop a mosaic of forested 

stands in a mix of age, composition, and structure that would occur under natural 

environmental influences. 

Rationale

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 2.2:

In alternative B, several strategies are described for increasing structural and 

compositional diversity within the northern hardwood forests. In this alternative, 

an additional strategy is considered, to be implemented if the other strategies are 

not successful for meeting the diversity targets. This strategy employs planting 

seedlings, grown from local seed sources of native trees and shrubs. After 10 

years, refuge staff will evaluate the achievement towards this objective and 

develop a plan for incorporating planting to meet the objective. 

Objective 2.2 (Northern 

Hardwood Forest – 

Understory)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-113

Alternative D. Focus on Managing for Historical Habitats

Strategies

In addition to strategies listed for alternative B, Objective 2.2:

Within 3 to 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Establish a woody regeneration and late-successional development 

demonstration area in existing upland forest to highlight and interpret 

experimental management strategies. 

Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval:

■ Determine effectiveness of strategies to meet target composition and diversity 

goals, and develop and implement a plan for the introduction of a mid-story 

component by planting site-appropriate native tree and shrub seedlings if 

other strategies are not achieving targets. Priority will be given to planting 

seedlings grown from local seed sources. For local genotypes of seedlings to be 

available for planting, this strategy may include developing nursery capabilities 

on site or developing partnerships with nurseries to grow an adequate supply.

Restore late-successional forest characteristics in the northern hardwood forest 

to develop characteristics representative of this community type under natural 

environmental influences. Target characteristics include increasing density of 

snags, increasing downed coarse woody debris, and increasing the density of 

large trees (≥50cm dbh).

Rationale

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 2.2:

The development of a late-successional forest is a long-term endeavor, with a 

time commitment longer than the period of this CCP. Silvicultural techniques, 

however, can hasten the development of late-successional characteristics 

and begin providing habitat similar to that provided by naturally developing 

old forests (Carey 2000, 2006). With the focus on biological integrity in this 

alternative, this objective shifts more attention to the restoration of the latesuccessional characteristics across more area than the other alternatives. McGee 

et al. (1999) developed recommendations for snag, large tree, and coarse woody 

debris targets for late-successional northern hardwood forests based on research 

of old growth and managed stands in the northeast.

Overall, most northern hardwood forests currently under management would 

need a long “recovery” period to create all-aged stands that include trees in the 

oldest age classes. Any restoration silviculture should use small and dispersed 

single-tree and small group selection cuts with no canopy openings greater than 

0.25 acres. This will lead to a very fine-grained, all-aged condition. Large legacy 

trees and other structural elements, such as large standing and downed dead 

wood, should be retained. Median canopy tree age should be approximately 150 

years, and stands should include mature trees that are 300+ years old (Roe and 

Ruesink 2004).

Objective 2.3 (Mature 

Northern Hardwood Forest)
3-114 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative D. Focus on Managing for Historical Habitats

Strategies

In addition to strategies listed under alternative B, Objective 2.3:

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Develop and implement a forest management plan which includes treatment 

prescriptions to increase the late-successional target characteristics of 50% of 

the even-aged northern hardwood forest stands. 

Within 3 to 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Establish a woody regeneration and late-successional development 

demonstration area in existing upland forest to highlight and interpret 

experimental management strategies.

Increase the occurrence of late-successional forest characteristics in the 214 

acres of conifer/mixed upland forest to restore conditions typical of this habitat 

type managed under natural environmental influences.

Rationale

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 2.4:

Old logging roads cross the valley’s slopes, altering the forest floor and canopy 

closure. Cuts in the soil for the road beds can exacerbate soil erosion leading to 

increased sedimentation of streams. Identifying obsolete road beds, methods for 

stabilizing soils and revegetating the openings, and implementing rehabilitation 

plans increases the forest’s integrity by eliminating sources of fragmentation. 

To restore the spruce-dominated forests in the uplands of Canaan Valley, this 

alternative broadens the restoration focus area to any forest that includes 

canopy spruce and sets a target of increasing tree seedling recruitment and 

developing late-successional characteristics in 75% of spruce-dominated forests. 

By establishing this broader target area, we are expanding the scope of forest 

restoration across greater areas of the refuge and intensifying the restoration 

efforts.

Strategies

In addition to strategies listed under alternative B, Objective 2.4: 

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Develop and implement a reforestation plan to rehabilitate closed trails 

and logging roads in spruce-dominated forests to protect those areas from 

disturbance, fragmentation, and invasive species infestation.

■ Identify all forest stands where red spruce exists in the canopy. These sites 

will lead to restoration planning efforts to maximize spruce and mature 

forest characteristics. These stands will become the baseline breeding habitat 

locations for focal migratory bird species surveys.

Within 3 to 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Develop and implement a silvicultural habitat management plan which includes 

establishing research plots with partners and addresses the recruitment 

and regeneration of shrub, trees, and herbaceous ground cover and the 

development of late-successional forest characteristics. Conduct treatments 

in 75% of available areas, ensuring minimal removal of overstory cover and 

retention of coarse woody debris.

Objective 2.4 (Mature 

Conifer Spruce / Mixed 

Forest)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-115

Alternative D. Focus on Managing for Historical Habitats

Establish a woody regeneration and late-successional development demonstration 

area in existing upland forest to highlight and interpret experimental 

management strategies.

Expand the areal extent of understory and canopy spruce by at least 25% in 

conifer and hardwood dominant forests to increase the area of potential future 

spruce-dominated forest and habitat for high elevation, conifer-forest dependent 

species and to begin ecosystem level restoration approximating habitat conditions 

as they would occur under natural environmental influences.

Rationale

See rationale for alternative B, Objective 2.5.

The focus of this objective would be to expand the area for red spruce seedling 

planting to include headwater and riparian areas and corridors between existing 

conifer stands. This would be in addition to planting adjacent to public use areas 

and establishing minimum patch sizes for species of concern and addresses the 

historical habitat alternative’s focus of reestablishing spruce forest and forest 

structural diversity in the uplands of Canaan Valley. Populations of Cheat 

Mountain salamanders and the West Virginia northern flying squirrel would be 

monitored to evaluate their response to the expansion of spruce forests. 

Strategies

In addition to strategies listed under alternative B, Objective 2.5:

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Develop and implement a silvicultural habitat management plan which 

identifies and prioritizes areas for planting red spruce seedlings, with highest 

priority given to riparian habitat, headwater drainages, and corridors between 

existing conifer stands.

Within 3 to 5 years of CCP approval:

■ Establish a woody regeneration and late-successional development 

demonstration area in existing upland forest to highlight and interpret 

experimental management strategies.

Provide and promote through active management a diversity of successional habitats 

in upland and wetland-edge shrubland, old field, and hardwood communities to 

sustain early successional and shrubland specialists such as golden-winged warbler, 

American woodcock, brown thrasher, Eastern towhee, field sparrow, and other species 

of concern.

Manage 143 acres of aspen-dominated wetland and upland communities for 

natural stand development and succession towards mature aspen woodlands, 

conifer swamps, and northern hardwood forests.

Rationale

Quaking and big-toothed aspen groves are naturally occurring successional 

communities of even-aged saplings or trees, maintained in Canaan Valley by 

beaver cutting, flooding, and possibly small wind-throw events. A. B. Brooks 

(1911) notes aspen occurring in Tucker County on a “high plateau near Davis”, 

which may be referring to Canaan Valley. Otherwise, the historical presence 

of aspen within Canaan Valley is not well documented but likely occurred in 

small patches and areas of wetland forest canopy gaps created through natural 

disturbances. Byers et al. (2007) predicts aspen communities in Canaan Valley, if 

Objective 2.5 (Conifer 

Spruce / Mixed Forest)

GOAL 3

Objective 3.1 (Forested 

Wetlands – Aspen 

Woodlands)
3-116 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative D. Focus on Managing for Historical Habitats

natural succession occurs, to convert to balsam fir-oat grass swamps, red sprucehemlock and rhododendron swamps, or red spruce-yellow birch swamps. The 

first two of these “climax” communities are ranked as S2G2 by NatureServe, 

indicating that they are communities of global and state conservation importance 

(NatureServe 2008) Allowing natural succession to proceed from the aspen 

communities is likely to increase the extent in Canaan Valley of these rare 

community types.

Beaver activity is likely to continue to regenerate young aspen and set back 

succession in some of the aspen stands, while others are expected to lose their 

aspen component over time. Beaver trapping would be used in or near the aspen 

communities only where documented rare plant species are likely to be impacted 

by prolonged inundation from beaver-created ponds. Natural community 

dynamics of beaver populations would be emphasized when possible.

Strategies

Same as strategies for Objective 1.2 of this alternative.

Restore mid-story and canopy woody species structural and compositional 

diversity to promote forest encroachment in the upland and wetland-edge 

successional shrublands and to reflect and approximate conditions as they would 

be influenced through natural ecological processes.

Rationale

Successional shrubland communities in Canaan Valley such as St. Johns wort and 

spirea shrublands are artifacts of previous human land use patterns including 

timber harvest and grazing. Allowing shrublands to succeed into mature forests 

would promote increased forest cover more closely resembling pre-European 

settlement conditions. The shrubland communities would be managed similarly to 

the northern hardwood forests described in Objective 2.1 of this alternative.

Strategies

In addition to strategies listed for alternative C, Objective 2.1. 

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Develop and implement a shrub and old field habitat management plan. This 

plan may include management actions such as erecting deer exclosures to study 

woody species recruitment and regeneration, planting native, local genotype 

tree species, and single tree cutting to promote tree regeneration from root 

sprouting.

■ Establish four woody regeneration and late successional development areas for 

research, education, and interpretation.

Restore structural and compositional woody species diversity and promote forest 

and shrubland encroachment in old field habitats to reflect successional plant 

community changes as they would occur under natural environmental influences.

Rationale

Old field communities in Canaan Valley are artifacts of land use patterns 

including timber harvest, grazing, and deer overabundance. Allowing old fields 

to succeed to mature forests and shrublands would promote increased forested 

cover more closely resembling pre-European settlement conditions, providing 

a mosaic of late-successional habitats and their associated natural dynamic 

processes. Initially we expect to increase nesting and foraging habitat to early 

successional species such as American woodcock, Eastern towhee, and brown 

Objective 3.2 (Shrubland)

Objective 3.3 (Old Field)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-117

Alternative D. Focus on Managing for Historical Habitats

thrasher, transitioning to increasing habitat for interior forest species such as 

scarlet tanager and eastern wood pewee. Time of transitional habitat change 

would be greater than the life of the CCP.

The historical habitat alternative proposes to meet the target structure and 

composition objectives through many of the same strategies as developed 

in alternative B. There is, however, an added emphasis on providing for the 

persistence of the glade spurge populations that occur on the Orders and 

Cortland tracts as these old fields revert to shrubland and forest habitat types. 

Glade spurge’s global population is vulnerable to extirpation (NatureServe 2008) 

yet Canaan Valley’s population has been described as one of the greatest in 

abundance (Carol Loeffler, personal communication, 2008 e-mail correspondence). 

The impact to the species’ persistence of converting old field habitat to forest or 

shrubland is unknown. However, experience at Blister Swamp, a high-elevation 

wetland site in West Virginia, fenced from cattle for 8 years, suggests that the 

species persists as shade from shrub development increases. The species is 

adapted to floodplain and seep woodlands and shrublands with partial shade. 

Populations of glade spurge are expected to remain viable over the long term 

as old pastures convert to woodlands, although individual plants may be lost 

(Elizabeth Byers, personal communication, July 30 2008). A study is on-going 

on the refuge to determine species demographics, competition with surrounding 

vegetation, and impacts sustained from deer browse. The information gathered 

from this study would aid refuge staff in determining the possible management 

strategies for maintaining the glade surge population on the refuge. 

Strategies

In addition to strategies for Objective 3.2 in this alternative:

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Develop and implement a plan to maintain persistence of glade spurge 

populations where they occur in old field communities reverting to shrubland 

and forest. This strategy may include erecting fencing to eliminate deer 

browse, mowing or girdling trees to prevent suppression by tall forbs and 

woody encroachment, and planting trees to suppress tall forbs while allowing 

the persistence of glade spurge). 

■ Establish four woody regeneration and late successional development areas for 

research, education and interpretation.

USGS research on Herz Tract

Ken Sturm/USFWS
3-118 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative D. Focus on Managing for Historical Habitats

Restore 530 acres of anthropogenic grassland habitat through early successional 

woody regeneration to late-successional shrubland and forest communities to 

reflect successional plant community changes as they would occur under natural 

environmental influences.

Rationale

The areas currently managed as grasslands by the refuge are openings created 

following the logging era of the 1900s and maintained by grazing since that 

time. Historical accounts of Canaan Valley indicate that the uplands where these 

grasslands now occur were previously forested. Naturally occurring grasslands 

instead are recorded along the slow moving river corridors on the valley floor. 

Allowing managed grasslands to succeed to historical natural vegetation would 

improve habitat for priority migratory species of concern during the 15 year 

duration of the plan as shrub communities develop. Habitat for species such as 

field sparrow, brown thrasher, and indigo bunting are expected to expand. Forest 

development would ultimately be encouraged. Although forest development would 

require longer period that the time-frame of this plan, forest bird species of 

concern such as black-throated blue warbler (migrants), black-billed cuckoo, and 

scarlet tanager would benefit from increased forest block size and reduced forest 

fragmentation. Henslow’s sparrow may benefit in the short term as grasslands 

age; however, over time excessive woody encroachment would eliminate habitat 

suitability for this species.

Strategies

In addition to strategies for Objective 3.2 in this alternative:

Within 3 years of CCP approval:

■ Plug ditches in managed grassland unit on Freeland, Harper, and Beall tracts.

■ Establish four woody regeneration and late successional development areas for 

research, education, and interpretation.

Visitors of all abilities enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

education to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of refuge 

habitats, wildlife, and cultural history.

Within 5 years of CCP approval, at least 80 percent of hunters on the refuge will 

report they had a high-quality experience. 

Rationale

Some species that are hunted on the refuge are locally rare and/or at the limit 

of their range. Such species include rails, which are rarely found on the refuge 

and are treasured by bird watchers; ring-necked pheasant, which are not known 

to occur on the refuge; and Appalachian cottontail, which are found on the 

mountains east and west of the valley. The Appalachian cottontail has not been 

recently documented in the valley, but it cannot be easily distinguished from the 

eastern cottontail. Under this alternative the refuge would remove these species 

from the hunt list.

Also under this alternative we would no longer permit night hunting for raccoon. 

The refuge has been concerned about disturbance to non-target species, 

including other nocturnal animals, as a result of this type of hunting. This added 

disturbance during a time when the refuge is otherwise closed to all other 

public uses detracts from the overarching goals of this alternative to restore 

natural processes and reduce disturbances which do not materially contribute to 

achieving historical plant and wildlife conditions. 

Objective 3.4 (Managed 

Grasslands)

GOAL 4

Objective 4.1 (Hunting)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-119

Alternative D. Focus on Managing for Historical Habitats

Strategies

Same as alternative B except:

■ Remove rail, ring-necked pheasant, Wilson’s snipe, American coot, common 

moorhen, and rabbit from the list of hunted species. 

■ Eliminate night hunting for raccoon.

Within 5 years of CCP approval, provide fishing opportunities such that 80 

percent of anglers report having a high-quality fishing experience on the refuge.

Rationale

Currently, non-native trout (brown and rainbow trout) are stocked in the 

Blackwater River. Prior to stocking non-native trout species, native brook trout 

were present in the Blackwater River. Now, native trout are present only in 

the tributaries of the Blackwater River, not the river itself. The stocked brown 

trout compete aggressively for food and habitat with the native brook trout and 

could be a factor in the depletion of the native brook trout’s population in the 

Blackwater River and distribution in its tributaries. Stocking only native trout 

in the Blackwater River would promote expansion of the native brook trout’s 

population range in the Blackwater River. 

Strategies

In addition to alternative B:

■ Work with state and other partners to stock only native fish species in the 

Blackwater River in Canaan Valley

Within 5 years of CCP approval, at least 80 percent of refuge visitors engaged 

in wildlife observation and nature photography will report a high quality 

experience.

Rationale

In this alternative we would reduce the number of trail miles. Some of these 

trails are relatively steep, are not well-placed for public use or lead onto private 

land. Even without these trails, the refuge’s trail system provides visitors 

adequate opportunity to observe and photograph the varied refuge habitats. 

Reducing the number of trail miles will allow the refuge to focus on maintaining 

the remaining trails and restoring some refuge habitat. It will also reduce 

disturbance to wildlife and their habitats. 

Strategies

Same as alternative B, except:

■ Close the Cabin Mountain spur trail and Cabin Mountain trail beyond Sand 

Run trail.

■ Close the Powderline trail and a section of 3-mile trail to completely revegetate 

Cheat Mountain salamander habitat.

■ Do not add a connection from Swinging Bridge Trail to Cortland Road.

■ Do not permit off-trail use anywhere on the refuge.

Objective 4.2 (Fishing)

Objective 4.3 (Wildlife 

Observation and 

Photography)
3-120 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative D. Focus on Managing for Historical Habitats

Same as alternative B.

Collaborate with partners to promote the natural resources of Canaan Valley and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Same as alternative B. 

Same as alternative B.

Objective 4.4 

(Environmental Education 

and Interpretation)

GOAL 5

Objective 5.1 (Outreach)

Objective 5.2 

(Communication)
Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-121

Map 3-10 Alternative D – Proposed Habitat Management
3-122 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Alternative D – Public Use Map 3-11
The table below highlights actions which distinguish each alternative and shows how the actions relate to our goals and 

how they address the significant issues identified in Chapter 1. Please refer to Chapter 3 for a complete description of each alternative including the rationales and anticipated timing of implementation of strategies listed below.

 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

StaffingRefuge manager (GS-13)Deputy refuge manager (GS-11/12)Supervisory biologist (GS-12)Biologist (GS-9/11)Park ranger(GS-7/9/11)Term Park Ranger (GS-5)Law enforcement officer (GS-7/9)Maintenance worker (WG-10)Term administrative assistant (GS-4/5)

In addition to Current Management:Make park ranger position permanent (GS-5/7/9)Make administrative assistant permanent (GS-5/6)Add a refuge operations specialist (GS5/7/9)Add a park ranger (GS-7/9)Add a permanent seasonal maintenance worker (WG-7)Add a biological technician (GS-7)

In addition to Current Management:Make park ranger position permanent (GS-5/7/9)Make administrative assistant permanent (GS-5/6)Add a refuge operations specialist (GS5/7/9)Add 2 park rangers (GS-7/9)Add a permanent seasonal maintenance worker (WG-7)Add a permanent full time maintenance worker (WG- 7)

In addiiton to Current Management:Make park ranger position permanent (GS-5/7/9)Make administrative assistant permanent (GS-5/6)Add a park ranger (GS-7/9)Add a permanent seasonal maintenance worker (WG-7)Add a full time law enforcement officer (GS- 7/9)

 Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative

Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-123

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative

Table 3.1:
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 1: Maintain and perpetuate the ecological integrity of the Canaan Valley wetland complex to ensure a healthy and diverse wetland ecosystem providing a full range of natural 

processes, community types, and native floral and faunal diversity.

Forested, Shrub and Herbaceous Wetlands and Open Water (all wetlands)Continue to map and evaluate wetland areas impacted by erosion, sedimentation, and hydrologic disturbance.Continue to minimize all refuge activities that would cause unnecessary disturbance to refuge wetland communities.Continue to work with partners (universities, colleges, NGOs, and federal and state agencies) on wetland monitoring and research projects.Continue to conduct baseline species and vegetation monitoring and inventories, as funding allows.

In addition to alternative A:Permit and encourage deer hunting to maintain a population that is within the ecological carrying capacity of the landscape. Identify locations where existing rail grades, road grades, and trails have altered natural hydrologic processes, evaluate and remediate so that natural processes are restored and soil erosion is reduced.Identify appropriate ecological integrity index metrics of the wetland complex and wildlife communities that depend on these habitats. Use metrics to monitor wetland complex and provide information for adaptive management actions.

In addition to alternative B:Promote increased deer harvest by opening vehicle access to southern Middle Ridge.

In addition to alternative B:Decrease the deer population by providing increased deer hunting seasons or other control techniques.Work with adjacent large landowners to implement site-appropriate deer hunting programs.

3-124 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 1 (cont.): Maintain and perpetuate the ecological integrity of the Canaan Valley wetland complex to ensure a healthy and diverse wetland ecosystem providing a full range of 

natural processes, community types, and native floral and faunal diversity.

Forested WetlandsContinue to work with volunteers and partners to support conifer propagation and planting projects in wetland and riparian communities focusing on areas with existing spruce/fir.Continue to support research to evaluate spruce restoration techniques and prioritize locations for restoration activities.Continue targeted beaver trapping program to prevent beaver impacts to riparian and wetland conifer forest communities.Continue to maintain and monitor balsam fir exclosures to evaluate impacts of deer browse on balsam fir reproduction, growth, and the success of associated wetland plant species.Continue acoustical monitoring efforts to detect foraging locations of Indiana bats during breeding and migration seasons.

In addition to alternative A:Work with partners to evaluate and implement methods for controlling balsam woolly adelgid.Construct deer exclosures to protect balsam fir seedlings from deer browsing and implement deer density surveys.Survey for Indiana bat presence and habitat use along 90% of riparian and wetland communities and determine appropriate conservation and management actions.Implement forest management techniques to improve the quality of at least 20% of potential Indiana bat habitat.Conduct beaver pond use and development surveys to determine potential of plant community loss through beaver activity.Issue special use permits for public beaver trapping to prevent prolonged inundation of high priority locations. 

In addition to alternative B:Funding and facilitation of the propagation and planting of balsam fir and red spruce seedlings will rely solely upon grants and partnerships.Deer exclosures built to protect balsam fir seedlings will be visible from public use trails for increased educational opportunities.Public opportunities for beaver trapping will be maximized in all refuge areas to prevent prolonged inundation of rare plant communities.

In addition to alternative B:Prioritize conifer restoration within station budget to ensure continual funding for seedling acquisition, silvicultural procedures and contracts to complete project work.Beaver trapping will be conducted by refuge staff or contractors if public trapping is not sufficient to accomplish management goals.

Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-125

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 1 (cont.): Maintain and perpetuate the ecological integrity of the Canaan Valley wetland complex to ensure a healthy and diverse wetland ecosystem providing a full range of 

natural processes, community types, and native floral and faunal diversity.

Shrub and Herbaceous WetlandsContinue passive management on the 5,060 acres of this habitat type.

Conduct acoustical monitoring surveys along streams and beaver ponds to detect presence of Indiana bats.Continue to work with partners to propagate alder seedlings to plant to increase patch size and suitable management areas.

In addition to alternative B:Public beaver trapping opportunities will be maximized in all refuge areas to prevent prolonged inundation of rare plant communities.

In addition to alternative B:Beaver trapping and control will be conducted by refuge staff or contractors if public trapping is not sufficient to accomplish management goals.

Open Water / AquaticContinue to work with WVDNR and other partners to support inventories of cold water habitat to document persistence of native brook trout and redside dace.Use the framework provided in the Interagency Status Report on the Fisheries Resources of the Upper Blackwater River in West Virginia to plan future management actions on stream and river habitats.Continue to allow the dynamic nature of beaver pond formation and evolution where bottomland forested and rare plant communities are not threatened.Continue to inventory and monitor priority wildlife and plant species in this habitat type.Continue acoustical monitoring efforts to detect foraging locations of Indiana bats. 

In addition to alternative A:Survey stream and river segments to document locations of existing populations of brook trout and redside dace.Identify, prioritize and conduct restoration in riparian corridors with less than 90% forest cover within a 100 meter and 500 meter buffer of the stream or spring.Identify effective management techniques for enhancing brook trout populations and develop a management plan for implementing the strategies.Evaluate need and feasibility of translocating redside dace from elsewhere in the state to suitable locations within the refuge. 

Same as alternative B. In addition to alternative B:

Increase canopy cover in 20% of identified priority riparian corridors by planting native tree and tall shrub species, using local seed source when possible, and allowing the regeneration through natural succession of woody species.

3-126 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 1 (cont.): Maintain and perpetuate the ecological integrity of the Canaan Valley wetland complex to ensure a healthy and diverse wetland ecosystem providing a full range of 

natural processes, community types, and native floral and faunal diversity.

Research Natural Area (RNA)No RNA established. Establish an 754 acre RNA be bounded 

generally by the by the western edge of the wetland complex along the Blackwater River to the south and, Middle Ridge to the East and a portion of Glade Run to the north. Complete a site specific management plan for the Blackwater Research Natural Area.Conduct outreach to research agencies and institutions to develop an active program for wetland related research activities within the BRNA.Permit deer hunting as regulated by the refuge Hunt Plan and EA.

Establish a 593 acre RNA bordered by the Blackwater River to the west, Glade Run to the north, Middle Ridge on the east and a drainage through the wetland from Middle Ridge on the south.

Same as alternative B. 

Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-127

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 2: Perpetuate the ecological integrity of upland northern hardwood and northern hardwood-conifer forests to sustain native wildlife and plant communities including species of 

conservation concern, to develop late-successional forest characteristics, to perpetuate the biological diversity and integrity of the upland forest ecosystem.

Northern Hardwood ForestContinue to work with partners to evaluate management options for promoting mature forest characteristics, forest species diversity and understory development.Continue to conduct breeding bird surveys in forest communities to monitor trends especially for birds of conservation concern.Protect the core spruce dominated forests from disturbance, fragmentation, or invasive species infestation.Continue to work with partners to experiment with methods to achieve latesuccessional characteristics.

In addition to alternative A:Identify and map locations of forest fragmentation including logging roads and locations with less than 600 meter radius forest cover and prioritize locations for restoration.Reduce fragmentation by obliterating and re-contouring old logging roads and planting tree seedlings to reduce number of fragmented forest gaps by 50%.Work with partners to manage deer densities on refuge and surrounding lands in Canaan valley that support understory woody and herbaceous forest development and protection.Locate forest seep communities and glade spurge populations and develop monitoring protocols to indicate the communities’ and species’ persistence.Develop and implement monitoring plan for presence and of forest pests and respond to the threats as practicable with the best current management strategies available.Establish 5 deer exclosures with controls to act as refugia for browse-sensitive herbaceous and woody species and demonstrate the severity of deer browse pressure on the forest ecosystem in Canaan.

Same as alternative B except:The propagation and planting of native tree seedlings will rely on grant funding, partnerships, and volunteers to support the restoration program.Natural regeneration of woody species and development of mid-story shrub and sapling structure within northern hardwood forests will rely on increased deer harvest in recently logged forest rather than planting.Management will focus on improving access and hunter pressure and increase survival of shrub and tree saplings.Management will be passive to allow for the successional development of mature forest characteristics.

In addition to alternative B:Promote natural regeneration of woody species and development of mid-story shrub and sapling structure within northern hardwood forests by reducing excessive deer browse pressure and planting red spruce seedlings.Identify adjacent landowners with forest cover and develop watershed-based forest conservation strategies with these partners that will ensure forested connectivity between the refuge and adjacent forested lands.Plant native upland tree seedlings to reduce the area of anthropogenic forest gaps by 75%.Establish a woody regeneration and latesuccessional development demonstration area in existing upland forest to highlight and interpret experimental management strategies.Develop and implement a forest management plan which includes treatment prescriptions to increase the late-successional target characteristics of 50% of the even-aged northern hardwood forest stands.

3-128 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 2 (cont.): Perpetuate the ecological integrity of upland northern hardwood and northern hardwood-conifer forests to sustain native wildlife and plant communities including 

species of conservation concern, to develop late-successional forest characteristics, to perpetuate the biological diversity and integrity of the upland forest ecosystem.

Northern Hardwood Forest (cont.)

Conduct inventory and monitoring projects to evaluate habitat management strategies for improving structure for focal species.Improve forest structure through canopy gap creation, thinning or other silvicultural operations to increase age class diversity.Identify and map stands with latesuccessional characteristics by compiling regionally-appropriate indicator characteristics and surveying stands for presence of these indicators.

Establish a woody regeneration and latesuccessional development demonstration area in existing upland forest to highlight and interpret experimental management strategies.

Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-129

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 2 (cont.): Perpetuate the ecological integrity of upland northern hardwood and northern hardwood-conifer forests to sustain native wildlife and plant communities including 

species of conservation concern, to develop late-successional forest characteristics, to perpetuate the biological diversity and integrity of the upland forest ecosystem.

Conifer (Spruce) / Mixed ForestIn addition to Current Management alternative strategies for Northern Hardwood Forest:Continue to identify locations where upland spruce forest is isolated and occurs in small patches for targeted planting efforts.Continue to work with partners, particularly through the Red Spruce MOU agreement, to collect, store, and propagate red spruce seed for conservation efforts on and off refuge property.Continue to support conifer restoration primarily through grant and partner funds.Continue to monitor populations of Cheat Mountain salamander and WV northern flying squirrel to document persistence, reproductive success, and to identify new occupied habitat.Continue to restore red spruce in and adjacent to occupied Cheat Mountain salamander habitat.Continue to cooperate with the multiagency red spruce-northern hardwood ecosystem MOU.Continue to work with partners to research habitat limitations, habitat improvement and mitigation options and the impacts of current management on CMS and WVNFS populations as identified in recovery plans.

In addition to alternative A:Conduct inventory and monitoring projects to evaluate habitat management strategies for improving structure for focal species.Protect core spruce area from disturbance, fragmentation, or invasive species infestation in the core of the sprucedominated forests.Work with partners to experiment with methods to achieve late-successional characteristics.Develop and implement a forest understory habitat management plan which encourages shrub and sapling understory growth across large tracts of spruce dominated forest, retaining coarse woody debris and minimal removal of overstory cover.Improve habitat structure for refuge focal species through thinning or other stand improvement operations.Collaborate with land management agencies and adjacent landowners to increase connectivity of spruce stands across management boundaries.Identify, connect, and enlarge spruce stands by under-planting existing vegetation with spruce seedlings.

Same as alternative B except:Management will be passive to allow for the successional development of mature forest characteristics.Continue to allow a limited number of public use trails and public access in spruce-dominated forests.Disturbance to and establishment of invasive species in this habitat type will be reduced by informing public users through education and interpretation programs rather than limiting access.Emphasis for spruce restoration sites will be located adjacent to public use trails to increase education and outreach opportunities.Propagation and planting of native tree seedlings will rely on grant funding and partnerships to support the restoration program.

In addition to alternative B:Develop and implement a reforestation plan to rehabilitate closed trails and logging to protect those areas from disturbance, fragmentation, and invasive species infestation.Develop and implement a silvicultural habitat management plan which includes establishing research plots with partners and addresses the recruitment and regeneration of shrubs, trees, and herbaceous ground cover and the development of late-successional forest characteristics.Conduct treatments in 75% of available areas, ensuring minimal removal of overstory cover and retention of coarse woody debris.Establish a woody regeneration and latesuccessional development demonstration area in existing upland forest to highlight and interpret experimental management strategies.Develop and implement a silvicultural habitat management plan which identifies and prioritizes areas for planting red spruce seedlings.

3-130 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 2 (cont.): Perpetuate the ecological integrity of upland northern hardwood and northern hardwood-conifer forests to sustain native wildlife and plant communities including 

species of conservation concern, to develop late-successional forest characteristics, to perpetuate the biological diversity and integrity of the upland forest ecosystem.

Conifer (Spruce) / Mixed Forest (cont.)

Identify and prioritize areas with great potential for spruce regeneration with emphasis given to suitable soils and aspect, proximity to existing spruce stands and riparian areas, and gaps and fragmentation created by old logging roads.Work with partners to maintain and perpetuate a source of red spruce seedlings available for planting on the refuge.Locate and monitor Cheat Mountain salamander populations, understand the impediments to the viability of the populations, and remediate the habitat to increase the population’s viability.

Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-131

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 3: Provide and promote through active management, a diversity of successional habitats in upland and wetland-edge shrub land, old field, and hardwood communities to sustain 

early successional and shrub land specialists such as the gold-winged warbler, American woodcock, brown thrasher, eastern towhee, field sparrow, and other species of concern.

Forested Wetlands / Aspen WoodlandsContinue to conduct rotational aspen patch cutting for improved aspen clone development.Continue to monitor the success of regeneration cuts relative to deer herbivory and site conditions.Continue breeding bird surveys, especially for birds of conservation concern.

In addition to alternative A:Conduct landbird point counts and woodcock singing ground surveys to assess performance of managed aspen habitats for meeting fundamental objective (3.1) and to determine need for future management actions.Develop and implement a HMP detailing aspen management for successional wildlife habitat with an emphasis on improving breeding and foraging habitat for American woodcock, golden-winged warbler, and other migratory birds.Monitor beaver and continue to manage beaver populations adjacent to aspen management areas to prevent excessive damage consistent with the furbearer management plan.Work with partners to establish early successional management demonstration sites which include aspen communities.Identify and designate aspen stands where perpetuation of natural succession to forested swamps will occur.Manage up to 5-10 acres of aspen annually through block cutting to promote early successional habitat. 

Same as alternative B. Same as Forested Wetlands strategies in 

Goal 1.

3-132 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 3 (cont.): Provide and promote through active management, a diversity of successional habitats in upland and wetland-edge shrub land, old field, and hardwood communities to 

sustain early successional and shrub land specialists such as the gold-winged warbler, American woodcock, brown thrasher, eastern towhee, field sparrow, and other species of concern.

Northern Hardwood ForestContinue passive management of this habitat type.

Conduct landbird point counts during breeding and survey areas during migration to assess management actions.Develop and implement HMP for successional forest management within transitional hardwood forest communities.Develop and implement a monitoring plan to evaluate regeneration success relative to deer browse impacts and fern encroachment.Use silvicultural practices to create openings, promote understory development, and sustain early successional habitat for American Woodcock and Eastern Towhee and other early successional species.Work with partners to establish early successional management demonstration sites which include even aged stand management of forest edges.Manage 10-15 acres of northern hardwood forest edge habitat annually to promote early successional habitat. Areas will be surveyed prior to cutting for presence of Indiana bats. 

Continue passive management of this habitat type.

Continue passive management of this habitat type.

Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-133

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 3 (cont.): Provide and promote through active management, a diversity of successional habitats in upland and wetland-edge shrub land, old field, and hardwood communities to 

sustain early successional and shrub land specialists such as the gold-winged warbler, American woodcock, brown thrasher, eastern towhee, field sparrow, and other species of concern.

Shrubland and Old FieldContinue to manage shrub communities to increase habitat structural diversity and provide singing grounds for American woodcock.Continue to document and monitor rare plant species locations and populations associated with shrubland habitat.Continue to mow low shrub cover within established hawthorn savannah to promote low herbaceous cover for foraging habitat for American Woodcock.Promote shrubland restoration at Thompson tract, including planting native shrub species to accelerate habitat development.Continue to evaluate alder regeneration plots.Continue to conduct breeding bird surveys in shrub communities to monitor trends especially for birds of conservation concern.

In addition to alternative A:Conduct land bird point counts during breeding, migration, or winter to assess performance of managed shrub and old field habitats.Mow or graze spirea, St. Johnswort, and other fast-growing shrub communities on a two to four year rotation to maintain singing ground habitat for American woodcock.Develop and implement a shrub and old field habitat management plan.Establish at least one demonstration area, accessible and visible from public access roads or trails, to demonstrate early successional management techniques and wildlife habitat response.Allow succession to occur on 216 acres of managed grassland and 2482 acres of old field habitat to maintain and increase shrub land habitat.Identify and prioritize suitable locations for alder planting, conduct experimental plantings, and monitor results.Identify locations where alder communities occur in unsaturated and drier soils, prioritize and conduct experimental cutting for alder regeneration.

Same as alternative B except:Manage 20% of old field habitats through rotational mowing to set back shrub encroachment and maintain an open, old field habitat.Establish at least two demonstration areas, easily accessible and visible from public access roads or trails, to demonstrate early successional management techniques and wildlife habitat response.

In addition to Goal 2 Northern Hardwood Forest strategies for this alternative:Develop and implement a shrub and old field habitat management plan.Establish four woody regeneration and late successional development areas for research, education, and interpretation.Develop and implement a plan to maintain persistence of glade spurge populations where they occur in old field communities reverting to shrubland and forest.

3-134 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 3 (cont.): Provide and promote through active management, a diversity of successional habitats in upland and wetland-edge shrub land, old field, and hardwood communities to 

sustain early successional and shrub land specialists such as the gold-winged warbler, American woodcock, brown thrasher, eastern towhee, field sparrow, and other species of concern.

Managed GrasslandsManage 531 acres of grassland by a combination of mowing, haying, or burning on a 3-5 year rotation, or as necessary, to maintain productive breeding habitat for grassland obligate bird species.Ensure at least 40% of refuge grasslands are allowed to remain in unmown grasses or herbaceous cover to provide forage and cover for migration habitat.Continue to conduct breeding bird surveys in grassland communities to monitor trends especially for birds of conservation concern.Continue to cooperate with partners to investigate site fidelity and dispersal of refuge nesting grassland species.

In addition to alternative A:Manage 315 acres of grassland by a combination of mowing, haying, or burning on a 3-year cycle or as needed to reduce woody encroachment focused on breeding areas for grassland obligate bird species.Ensure at least 80% of field acres are available as standing grassland during migration.Remove fragmentation and edge effects and consolidate adjacent fields into larger units to increase the percentage of effective interior habitat.Assess managed grasslands to migrating land birds and raptors.Work with partners to establish early successional management demonstration sites which include grassland habitat.Work with private landowners to encourage late haying and mowing of grasslands adjacent to refuge property.Work with private landowners to develop conservation easements and other land protection incentives to maintain grassland habitat in the surrounding area.

Same as alternative B except:Manage 341 acres of grassland by a combination of mowing, haying, grazing or burning on a 3-year cycle or as needed to reduce woody encroachment focused on breeding areas for grassland obligate bird species.

In addition to Goal 3 Shrubland strategies for this alternative:No grassland management. All 531 acres of grassland are moved towards early successional shrubland habitat.Plug ditches in managed grassland unit on Freeland, Harper, and Beall tracts.

Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-135

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 4: Visitors of all abilities enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and education to enhance public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of refuge habitats, 

wildlife, and cultural history.

HuntingContinue to provide quality, safe, compatible hunting opportunities according to state regulations and seasons through a refuge permit system.Continue to allow night hunting for raccoon.Prohibit hunting, except spring gobbler, from the end of February through the beginning of September.Maintain two accessible hunt blinds. If the demand for those blinds exceeds our supply, implement a lottery system.Limit the number of hunt permits if data shows a need to do so to preserve the quality of the hunt.Continue to allow the use of pursuit dogs per state regulations, with up to 6 dogs per hunting party.Continue to permit hunt dogs off-leash, provided they are collared with owner ID, and under the control of the owner.Continue to provide parking in designated areas for hunters.

In addition to alternative A and within 5 years of final CCP approval:Modify “no rifle zones” to allow more rifle hunting consistent with public safety.Streamline the hunt permitting system.Increase white-tailed deer harvest by assisting hunters with extraction of deer from remote areas with a deer pick-up shuttle system.Promote outreach and education programs to increase understanding of the importance of doe hunting and the impacts of overabundant deer.Open the Beall gate to allow hunters vehicle access to North Beall Road (no ATVs).Close the Research Natural Area to all hunting except for a management deer hunt.Gather deer population data and work with WV DNR, surrounding landowners, hunt clubs and other partners to reduce the deer herd in Canaan Valley by encouraging cooperative, managed deer hunts.

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B except:

Remove rail, ring-necked pheasant, Wilson’s snipe, American coot, common moorhen, and rabbit from the list of species hunted.Eliminate night hunting for raccoon. 

3-136 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 4 (cont.): Visitors of all abilities enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and education to enhance public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of refuge 

habitats, wildlife, and cultural history.

Hunting (cont.) Work with adjacent land managers and the WV DNR to encourage cooperative, managed deer hunts.

Within 5-10 years of CCP approval:Work with the state legislature and state representatives more closely on deer related issues, solutions and legislative proposals.Work with the state to permit special antlerless hunts on the refuge.Require a special use permit for rabbit hunting.

FishingContinue to promote quality fishing opportunities in state jurisdictional areas and according to state regulations.Allow fishing where approved roads or trails provide access to state jurisdictional waterways or other water bodies on the refuge.Continue to maintain the ADA-compliant fishing platform along Timberline Road and promote awareness of this new platform.Continue to participate in the County’s fishing derby.Continue to participate in the HOFNOD Expo.

In addition to alternative A:Officially open the refuge for fishing.Work with interagency fisheries groups to manage for native fish and quality fisheries.Educate anglers on the proper use and disposal of non-native aquatic bait.Improve signage directing public to designated approved fishing locations.Provide informational brochures and/or signs that promote awareness of refugespecific and state fishing regulations.Work with Canaan Valley Institute (CVI) to construct an ADA-compliant fishing platform on Camp 70 Road, on the Service’s property or on CVI’s property. 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B, except:

Work with State and other partners to stock only native fish species in the Blackwater River in Canaan Valley.

Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-137

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 4 (cont.): Visitors of all abilities enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and education to enhance public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of refuge 

habitats, wildlife, and cultural history.

Wildlife Observation and PhotographyContinue to provide 31 miles of roads and trails open throughout the year for visitors.Continue to permit White Grass Inc. to run a commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing operation with 10 miles of trails on Service-owned lands.Complete a boardwalk loop at the Freeland trail.Continue to work with the refugevolunteer-based Adopt-a-Trail program and with Tucker County Trails to maintain and improve trail conditions, signs, and blazing.Maintain unimproved boat launches at two locations, one on Timberline Road and one at Camp 70. Continue to prohibit overnight parking.Continue to permit limited off trail use by non-hunters through issuance of Special Use Permits.Continue to permit leashed dogs on refuge trails.

In addition to alternative A and within 5 years of CCP approval:Visitors will continue to be allowed to walk with dogs on refuge trails but leashes must be no longer than 8 feet.Consider converting the special use permit for commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing to a concession.Construct an interpretive kiosk and parking area where A-frame Rd. enters the refuge.Allow overnight parking by permit on Forest Road 80 for visitors accessing and camping in Dolly Sods.Revegetate edges of Powderline Trail and part of Three-Mile Trail to improve habitat for Cheat Mountain salamanders. Look into trail diverters and other methods for improving salamander habitat.Close the Freeland Tract to hunting (except for special deer hunts), fishing, and walking with dogs, to provide additional, highquality opportunities for wildlife viewing and study.

Same as alternative B except:Create a Cross Valley Trail from the Brown Mountain Overlook trail through the north railroad grade to A-Frame Road.If the refuge were to gain jurisdiction over the Camp 70/Delta 13 Road, we would permit vehicles to drive into the valley to a parking area. We would consider options for improving visitor access, such as installing an accessible observation platform.Allow off-trail use by permit for pedestrian, cross country skiing and snowshoeing access in a designated area on Sundays during the hunt season. We would issue a maximum of 25 permits per month.Open all of Brown Mountain Overlook Trail for biking.

Same as alternative B except:Close the Cabin Mountain spur trail and Cabin Mountain trail beyond Sand Run trail.Close the Powderline and a section of Three-Mile trail to completely revegetate Cheat Mountain salamander habitat.Do not add a connection from Swinging Bridge Trail to Cortland Road.Do not permit off-trail anywhere on the refuge, except for hunting.

3-138 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 4 (cont.): Visitors of all abilities enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and education to enhance public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of refuge 

habitats, wildlife, and cultural history.

Wildlife Observation and Photography (cont.)

Coordinate with CVI and other partners to connect Swinging Bridge trail to Cortland Road for pedestrian and bicycle access.Upon transfer of the Beall Bridge and the adjoining property to the Service, connect the Beall trails to the Middle Valley Trails and allow access for bicycle, equestrian, and pedestrian use. Emergency vehicles may cross the bridge to respond to emergencies in Timberline.Work with White Grass Ski Touring Center to improve trail signs to encourage visitors to stay on designated ski trails.Consider re-routing or modifying steep trails to make them more stable and to minimize erosion.Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval:Construct a photo/observation blind along the trail at the end of A-Frame Rd.Initiate discussions with the state park about the possibility of connecting the refuge Visitor Center to Canaan Valley State Park via a trail.Work with Tucker County Trails on connecting Camp 70 Loop Trail and Brown Mountain Overlook Trail. Permit bicycle access on the western portion of the Brown Mountain Overlook Trail.Install kiosk and directional signs to direct visitors toward boat access points.

Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-139

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 4 (cont.): Visitors of all abilities enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and education to enhance public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of refuge 

habitats, wildlife, and cultural history.

Wildlife Observation and Photography (cont.)

Within 10 to 15 years of CCP approval:Improve two launch sites for canoes, kayaks, or other hand-launched boats at Old Timberline Road and the Camp 70 Road pullout.Throughout the life of the CCP:Coordinate with adjacent land owners to form a “Heart of the Highlands” trail system, which will promote trail connectivity among public and private lands throughout the region.Work with WVDOT to gain jurisdiction over the Delta 13/Camp 70 Road so the Service can repair the road and maintain a trail open to pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle use.

3-140 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 4 (cont.): Visitors of all abilities enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and education to enhance public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of refuge 

habitats, wildlife, and cultural history.

Environmental Education and InterpretationContinue to work with Tucker County Connections on their 5th-grade three-day “camp.”Work with local girl scouts on their summer day camp.Provide an annual “Wild School Day” refuge experience for all local 6th-grade students. Master Naturalists meet on the refuge for their training once a month from April through December.College students work with us to restore native forests with two tree planting weekends per year.Assist teachers and youth group leaders with refuge field trips upon request whenever staff is available.

In addition to alternative A and within 5 years of CCP approval:Hire a park ranger (GS 7/9) to support expanded programs and expanded Visitor Center hours. Double the number of students using the refuge.Develop a self-guided interpretive trail on the Freeland Trail.Present at least three off-site exhibits and up to three off-site programs annually.Develop a professional traveling exhibit.Offer 30-50 on-site interpretive programs annually.Open the Visitor Center seven days per week during times of peak visitation and at least three days per week during the rest of the year.

Same as alternative B except:Construct the Environmental Education pavilion on Freeland tract and open the Visitor Center 7 days a week all year round. 

Same as alternative B. 

Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-141

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 4 (cont.): Visitors of all abilities enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and education to enhance public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of refuge 

habitats, wildlife, and cultural history.

Environmental Education and Interpretation (cont.)Provide a small curriculum library where teachers may find lessons to teach about the environment.Offer a variety of interpretive programs, and interpretive signs on trails.Continue to provide Visitor Center exhibits that illustrate the variety of habitats on the refuge and in the local area in general, and that promote the mission of the Service and of the National Wildlife Refuge System.Continue to open the visitor center 4 days per week.Continue to recruit local and part-time resident volunteers to help staff the visitor center.Continue to employ a STEP to help staff the visitor center on Saturdays.

Design and construct or re-allocate space to designate a larger meeting room in the vicinity of the visitor center. Within 5 to 10 years of CCP approval:Develop and present at least three environmental education teacher workshops annually.With additional staff, advertise and present 12 or more field trips for school children on the refuge per year.Plan and construct an environmental education pavilion at the Beall Trail, near the Blackwater River. Choose a location on the Blackwater River for a floating platform if needed for student pond studies.Expand the refuge’s reach to communities that are within an hour’s drive of the refuge, such as Elkins, Oakland, and/or Petersburg, by presenting 6-8 programs in these school districts per year.Develop additional interpretive signage for other trails and kiosks.Develop one reception area for the combined needs of the office and visitor center. Construct a trailer pad and recruit work camper volunteers to help staff the Visitor Center.

3-142 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
 Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public 

Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats

Goal 5: Collaborate with partners to promote the natural resources of Canaan Valley and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.Outreach and CommunicationContinue the following to facilitate communication with the community and stakeholders.Participate in public lands working group.Write news articles for the Parsons Advocate and Elkins Intermountain.Write articles for the Timberdoodle.Write articles and post announcements in newsletters of the valley’s homeowners associations.Conduct outreach to adjacent landowners.Participate in community outreach events such as HOFNOD and Forest Festival.Build working partnerships with NGOs and municipalities and through the Private Lands program at the West Virginia FWS Field Office.Continue to take interactive traveling exhibits to local festivals as time and staff permit.

In addition to alternative A:Hold an annual public open house (preferably in the fall).

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B.

Chapter 3. Alternatives Considered, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative 3-143

Summary Comparison of Management Actions by Alternative
Chapter 1 Chapter 4

■ Introduction

■ Effects on Air Quality

■ Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality

■ Effects on Soils

■ Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment

■ Effects on the Social Environment

■ Effects on Upland Habitats

■ Effects on Freshwater Wetland Habitats

■ Effects on Fisheries Habitats and Resources

■ Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species

■ Effects of Public Use and Access

■ Cumulative Impacts

■ Environmental Justice

Environmental Consequences

Female chalk-fronted corporal

Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-1

This chapter describes the environmental consequences we predict from 

implementing the management alternatives presented in chapter 3. Where 

detailed information is available, we present a scientific and analytic comparison 

between alternatives and their anticipated consequences, which we describe 

as “impacts” or “effects.” In the absence of detailed information, we make 

comparisons based on our professional judgment and experience. We specifically 

predict the effects of implementing the management actions and strategies 

for each of the four alternatives: alternative A (Current Management), which 

serves as the baseline for comparing alternative B (Focal Species Emphasis: the 

Service-preferred alternative), alternative C (Emphasis on Expanding Priority 

Public Uses), and alternative D (Focus on Managing Historic Habitats).

Our discussion focuses on the impacts associated with the goals and issues 

identified in chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action. Direct, indirect, shortterm, beneficial and adverse effects likely to occur over the 15-year life span of 

the plan are discussed. Beyond the 15-year planning horizon, we give a more 

speculative description of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. At the end 

of this chapter, Table 4.12 summarizes the effects predicted for each alternative 

and allows for a side-by-side comparison. This chapter identifies the irreversible 

and irretrievable commitment of resources from our proposed actions. The 

relationship between short-term uses of the environment and long-term 

productivity of proposed actions, their cumulative effects, and the relationship to 

environmental justice are also described.

As required by Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) regulations implementing the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), we assessed the importance of the effects of the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) alternatives based on their context 

and intensity. The context of the impacts ranges from local and site-specific 

to regional and broad-scale, for example, direct impacts to soils at a kiosk 

construction location would be highly localized. Impacts on Cheat Mountain 

salamanders would directly affect their populations in Canaan Valley and 

indirectly affect their populations in the larger context of their limited range and 

distribution. Improvements in breeding habitat for golden-winged warbler would 

benefit this species of conservation concern in the context of Bird Conservation 

Region (BCR) 28 and throughout its range. Although refuge lands comprise a 

small percentage of these larger ecosystem or regional contexts, all alternatives 

were developed to contribute towards conservation goals in these larger 

geographic landscapes. Table 4.1 provides some context for our discussion.

We evaluated the intensity of impacts based on the expected degree or 

percentage of resource change from current conditions, the frequency and 

duration of the effect, the sensitivity of the resource to such an effect or the 

natural resiliency of the resource to recover from such an effect, and the potential 

for implementing effective preventative or mitigation measures to reduce the 

effect. Duration of effects vary from those that would occur only once for a brief 

period of time during the 15-year planning horizon, for example, the effects of 

environmental education pavilion construction, to those that would occur every 

day during a given season of the year, for example, the effects of hunting and 

fishing.

Introduction

Introduction
4-2 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Table 4.1. Impact contexts for Service actions under CCP at Canaan Valley 

Refuge

Area Acres

Environmental Education Pavilion 0.06 acres

Spruce-fir Forest Units 215 acres

Research Natural Area 754 acres

Canaan Valley Refuge 16,183 acres

Tucker County, W.V. 269,440 acres (421 mi2)

Partners in Flight (Landbird), Mid Atlantic Ridge and 

Valley Physiographic Region 12 – Spruce-fir Forest 90,439 acres (141 mi2)

Appalachian Mountain Region – Bird Conservation 

Region 28 105 million acres (164,063 mi2)

There are certain types of actions identified in chapter 3 that do not require 

additional NEPA analysis because they are “categorically excluded” (516 DM 

2.3(A)) from further analysis or review. Categorical exclusions are classes of 

actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the 

human environment. These categorically excluded actions include, but are not 

limited to, the following actions, as listed in 516 DM 8.5A:

■ Environmental education and interpretative programs (unless major 

construction is involved, or a significant increase in visitation is expected).

■ Research, resource inventories, and other resource information collection 

activities.

■ Operations and maintenance of existing infrastructure and facilities (unless 

major renovation is involved).

■ Routine, recurring management activities and improvements.

■ Small construction projects (e.g. fences, berms, small stream and wetland 

restoration projects, trail maintenance, interpretative kiosks, development of 

access for routine management purposes).

■ Minor vegetation plantings.

■ Reintroducing native plants and animals.

■ Minor changes in amounts or types of public use.

■ Issuance of new or revised management plans when only minor changes are 

planned.

■ Law enforcement activities.

The ‘extraordinary circumstances’ in 43 C.F.R 46.215 are exceptions to our 

categorical exclusions discussed above. If any of these exceptions apply, we will 

conduct a further NEPA analysis of the proposed action.

Introduction
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-3

Specifically, the proposed actions we plan to categorically exclude and that do not 

pose extraordinary circumstances are:

■ Convert Camp 70/Delta 13 road to a trail for pedestrian, equestrian, and 

bicycle use, provided the refuge gains jurisdiction over this road. 

■ Construct a photo/observation blind along the trail at the end of A-Frame Rd.

■ Improve already-existing boat launch sites.

■ Renovate existing refuge offices to create a larger meeting space. 

Actions that are not categorically excluded and that will require additional NEPA 

analysis above and beyond this draft CCP/EA are: 

■ Create new trails and trail connections. 

■ Construct a parking area, platform and interpretive kiosk where A-frame Road 

enters the refuge.

■ Create new boat launch sites.

■ Construct an environmental education pavilion on the Beall Trail in the vicinity 

of the Blackwater River. 

We have organized this chapter by major resource heading. Under each heading 

we discuss the resource context and management actions that may affect the 

environment then benefits and adverse effects regardless of which alternative is 

selected, and finally the benefits and adverse effects of each of the alternatives. 

Effects on wildlife and plants are discussed within the “Effects on Uplands 

Habitats” and “Effects on Freshwater Wetlands” sections as anticipated effects 

to wildlife and plant species are interconnected with the refuge’s management 

actions in these habitat types. For more information on impacts relating to the 

refuge’s hunt program refer to the “Amended Environmental Assessment Hunt 

Program Proposal” (April 2007), and available on the planning website along with 

this document. 

Chapter 2 – Affected Environment presents the status of air quality in the region 

of the refuge. Overall air quality is good, with no current criteria pollutants 

exceedances, but of recent concern is ground level ozone which has exceeded the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 8-hr standard (75 ppb) for safe health 

levels on 1-5 days per year from 1995 to present.

We evaluated the management actions the alternatives propose for their potential 

to help improve air quality locally, in the region, and globally. The benefits we 

considered included the 

■ potential to adopt energy efficient practices to reduce the refuge’s contribution 

to emissions and use the Service’s Strategic Plan for Responding to Climate 

Change (draft 2009) 

■ potential of refuge land acquisition and protection to limit the growth of 

development, thereby limiting emission sources and reducing losses of natural 

vegetation 

■ potential of refuge forest management activities, such as reforestation, to 

contribute to carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gases 

Effects on Air Quality

Effects on Air Quality
4-4 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

The potential adverse air quality effects of the Canaan Valley management 

alternatives that we evaluated included increases in pollutants from

■ setting prescribed fires to manage grasslands.

■ applying herbicides to control invasive plants.

■ blowing dust from construction sites, roads, and trails.

■ increasing emissions from vehicles and equipment.

Regardless of which management alternative our regional director selects, refuge 

management activities should not adversely affect regional air quality. None of 

the alternatives would violate EPA standards; all four would be in compliance 

with the Clean Air Act. 

In Tucker County and surrounding counties there are a number of hazardous 

air pollution sources (EPA 2008), most notably Mount Storm Power Station in 

Grant County. Tucker County is in-attainment for criteria pollutants. No major 

stationary or mobile sources of air pollutants are present at the refuge, and our 

management would create none. On the contrary, the Service limits the uses of 

the refuge to compatible, wildlife-oriented, consumptive and non-consumptive 

uses, and thus, curtails anthropogenic sources of emissions by maintaining 

forested and non-forested wetlands, upland forests, grasslands, and early 

successional sites in natural vegetation cover. Therefore, in analyzing the impacts 

on air quality, we considered only how Service actions at the refuge might 

affect criteria air pollutants, visibility, and global warming to a minimal degree, 

focusing instead on the potential for localized air quality impacts or improvement.

Air Quality Impacts 

That Would Not Vary by 

Alternative

Prescribed burn

Gerald Vickers/USFWS

Effects on Air Quality
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-5

None of the proposed management alternatives would affect visibility due to 

emission haze at the nearest Class I airsheds, Dolly Sods and Otter Creek 

wildernesses. Of particular concern is the Dolly Sods wilderness, which borders 

the refuge and has the potential to be directly affected by refuge construction 

and public use activities. In all the alternatives, the management actions would 

be short-term and localized and public uses of the refuge would contribute a 

negligible increment to the Tucker County air emission levels overall. Visibility 

at the Dolly Sods wilderness area would benefit from the protection of adjacent 

refuge lands which precludes development activities.

Wildfires are not a substantial concern at the refuge, because they occur 

infrequently, and the rapid local response quickly limits their extent. Although 

we would conduct prescribed burns to manage grassland and other habitat 

in alternatives A, B, and C and to possibly control invasive plants in all the 

alternatives, we would monitor and control the burning carefully to keep the risk 

of wildfire low.

In all the alternatives, we would use the herbicides approved by the Service 

such as, but not limited to, glyphosate to control invasive plants. Glyphosate is 

a non-volatile compound we would apply only with ground equipment, backpack 

sprayers, or hand-wicking individual plants, thereby virtually eliminating the 

likelihood of any measurable airborne particulates. Glyphosate is not a high risk 

to human or wildlife health, because of its low toxicity to vertebrates and strong 

affinity for soils that renders it biologically unavailable soon after application. 

Nevertheless, we will take all precautions with respect to wind conditions, time 

of day, and proper equipment to ensure that we expose only target plants to the 

chemical.

We will make responsible energy use fundamental in the development and 

operation of our lands and facilities, as well as in contractor and commercial 

visitor services. The energy management process will emphasize energy 

awareness, energy conservation, and energy efficiency, as well as the use of 

renewable energy resources, including bio-based fuels. We would introduce 

energy efficiency measures in our operations that would also reduce emissions. 

All motorized equipment would be upgraded to 4-stroke equipment whenever a 

current piece of equipment is retired. We would improve insulation in buildings, 

use radiant heat where feasible, and fluorescent lights where ever possible.

Benefits

Proposed refuge management activities would neither substantively benefit nor 

adversely affect currently good local and regional air quality, with no violations of 

federal or state Clean Air Act standards, no impacts to nearby Class I areas, and 

no cumulative effects on regional ozone or particulate matter pollutant levels.

There would be minor air quality benefits from the air pollutant filtering effects 

of 16,183 acres of upland, riparian and wetlands vegetation and from adopting 

energy efficient practices. There would be a negligible reduction in atmospheric 

carbon due to the sequestering effects of 6,962 forested acres. Benefits would be 

limited to land purchases within the current refuge acquisition boundary.

Under alternative A, there would be minimal forest stand improvement and 

shrub management activities (i.e., alder/shrub and aspen cutting) that would 

involve removal of existing cover. The refuge will continue planting red spruce, 

balsam fir, and other native tree seedlings. While planting seedlings would 

increase beneficial effects from carbon sequestration, the extent of benefits is 

limited when compared to the other alternatives.

Impacts of Alternative A 

(Current Management)

Effects on Air Quality
4-6 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Adverse Impacts

Alternative A would include few ground disturbing activities and introduce few 

additional emission sources. Adverse impacts are the same as those discussed in 

Impacts that would not vary by alternative. 

An increase of about 10 percent annual refuge visits by motor vehicle would cause 

a minor increase in air emissions in the long term and contribute minimally to 

potential cumulative effects.

Benefits

The effects of alternative B would be similar to alternative A. Locally there 

would be more minor benefits in comparison to alternative A but also more 

potential adverse effects.

Air quality benefits would increase from maintaining up to 16,183 acres of 

natural vegetation on existing refuge lands to filter air and from more energy 

efficient refuge operations. Acquiring additional forested acres within the 

acquisition boundary would stem nearby development growth and reduce 

potential air emissions from homes, businesses, camps, vehicles, off-road vehicles 

and equipment.

We would institute a forest management plan that focuses on forest restoration, 

improvement and enlargement of red spruce, balsam fir, and northern hardwood 

stands so that carbon sequestration benefits would increase. Increasing the 

extent of forest stands would improve the health, diversity, and resilience of 

the forest to disturbance, disease, and insect outbreaks, thus maintaining an 

important carbon “sink.” 

Adverse Impacts

A 15 percent projected increase in annual refuge visits would increase vehicle 

emissions on and near the refuge in the longer term. Vehicle emissions would be 

expected to increase with the addition of a limited shuttle service to facilitate the 

harvest of white-tailed deer in remote locations on the refuge.

New trail, infrastructure, and parking lot construction (see text box) would cause 

short-term, localized effects from dust and from the exhaust of construction 

vehicles and other equipment. The operation of the refuge headquarters and 

other facilities would continue to contribute slightly to the ambient levels of local, 

stationary source emissions.

Table 4.2. Alternative B Proposed Construction Projects

1. Connect Beall trails to Middle Valley Trail, Brown Mountain Overlook to Camp 70 Loop Trail, and Swinging bridge trail to Cortland 

Road

2. Construct an observation platform along A-Frame Road on the refuge.

3. Construct an environmental education pavilion and storage room on the Beall Tract.

4. Construct larger meeting room near visitor center or re-allocate space within headquarters facility.

Benefits

Alternative C would have similar beneficial impacts as described in alternative B. 

Adverse Impacts

Alternative C would have similar adverse impacts as described in alternative 

B. There would be an increase in localized, short-term impacts from additional 

construction (see text box).

Impacts of Alternative B 

(Focal Species Emphasis)

Impacts of Alternative C 

(Maximize Public Use)

Effects on Air Quality
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-7

Table 4.3. Alternative C Proposed Construction Projects

In addition to Alternative B Proposed Construction Projects:

Design and install an observation platform at the end of the developed road on Camp 70.

Create a cross valley trail by connecting Brown Mountain Overlook trail to A-Frame Road.

Reconstruct Delta 13/Camp 70 Road if WV Department of Transportation abandons it and construct a new parking lot.

Benefits

Alternative D would provide increased long-term benefits to air quality when 

compared with the other alternatives. Over the long-term (50+ years) the 

predominance of more mature stands would improve the health, diversity, 

and resilience of the forest to disturbance, disease, and insect outbreaks, thus 

maintaining an important carbon “sink.” Additionally, trail closures would 

concentrate visitor use and provide opportunities for the refuge to restore native 

forest plant communities providing long-term benefits to local air quality.

We would not burn any prescribed fires for grassland management, but would 

allow the refuge grasslands to succeed to scrub-shrub and forested habitat. 

Adverse Impacts

Vehicle emissions would be similar to those discussed in alternative A. Adverse 

impacts from visitor infrastructure construction projects are the same as those 

discussed in alternative B.

Management actions proposed for the refuge’s CCP alternatives were evaluated 

and compared based on their potential to help maintain and improve the 

hydrology and water quality of the wetlands, rivers, ponds, and vernal pools in 

the Blackwater River watershed. We evaluated the benefits of actions that would 

protect or restore the hydrology or maintain or improve water quality including:

■ Land acquisition and conservation that would provide watershed benefits by 

limiting land clearing and changes in local hydrology.

■ Habitat restoration through logging/skid road removal that would reduce 

erosion and restore site hydrology.

■ Wetland restoration projects.

■ Improvements in local hydrology through road/trail reconstruction or removal 

and culvert removal, replacement, or installation.

■ Improved water quality monitoring for early problem identification.

■ Improved cooperation of other landowners in watershed to influence water 

quality.

■ Establishing a Research Natural Area (RNA) to preserve examples of major 

wetland ecosystem types, provide research and educational opportunities 

for scientists and others; and contribute to the preservation of genetic and 

behavioral diversity for native plants and animals.

Impacts of Alternative D 

(Focus on Managing for 

Historical Habitat)

Effects on Hydrology 

and Water Quality

Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality
4-8 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Big Cove beaver pond

Ken Sturm/USFWS

We evaluated and compared the impacts of refuge management actions with the 

potential to cause adverse effects to hydrology and water quality including:

■ Use of herbicides to manage invasive species.

■ Refuge construction projects.

■ Changes in recreational use that might lead to increased siltation into refuge 

waterways and petroleum product contamination.

Regardless of which alternative we select, we would take a number of steps to 

ensure that we have sufficient scientific data to support management decisions 

regarding refuge hydrology and water quality.

Benefits

We would expect an increase in hydrology and water quality benefits 

from continued protection and restoration of refuge lands. Acquisition and 

conservation of more than 8,932 additional acres of upland forest, wetlands, 

and other lands within the acquisition boundary would further benefit water 

resources because acquisition would increase watershed protection to ensure the 

integrity of wetland habitats in Canaan Valley. 

Service actions at the refuge would not affect pollution 

levels from point and nonpoint sources. However, the 

refuge will continue to benefit water quality in the 

Blackwater River watershed by limiting development in 

that part of the watershed and acting as a buffer against 

non-point-source pollution in the surrounding landscape. 

The existing and restored wetlands adjacent to the river 

will filter water moving into the river and help improve 

water quality.

Stringent precautions in conducting refuge management 

activities would prevent chemical contamination of water 

directly through leaks or spills or indirectly through soil 

runoff.

Adverse Impacts

In managing the refuge, we would closely monitor and mitigate all of our routine 

activities that have some potential to result in chemical contamination of water 

directly through leakage or spills or indirectly through soil runoff. These include 

control of weeds and insects around structures, use of chemicals for de-icing 

walkways, and use of soaps and detergents for cleaning vehicles and equipment. 

Personnel would take the following precautions to minimize the potential for the 

chemicals and petroleum products becoming a water quality problem:

■ Pouring or mixing of chemicals or petroleum products would be conducted no 

closer than 100 feet from surface water and over a non-porous surface material.

■ All staff would be trained in spill prevention and spill response.

■ All vehicle and equipment cleaning would be performed at the existing shop 

wash pad to filter run off.

■ All applicators would be state certified.

Impacts That Would Not 

Vary by Alternative

Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-9

Invasive plant control with herbicides - The herbicides selected are reviewed by 

the Regional Contaminants Specialist who is responsible for upholding federal 

standards for water quality and soil protection. Only those chemicals approved by 

the Service will be used. It is also acknowledged that reducing our dependency on 

chemical pesticides is unquestionably the best thing to do for protecting refuge 

resources. A common herbicide used by the refuge currently includes the active 

ingredient glyphosate, formulated as Rodeo®, used to prevent establishment and 

spread of invasive plants, in particular, reed canary grass, multiflora rose, yellow 

flag iris, and cattails.

Some potential exists for the concentration of herbicides to build up over time in 

river sediments, lakes, ponds, and wetland habitats. The potential depends on the 

balance of pesticide input and removal from the lake or pond system. Herbicide 

inputs may occur either through direct application, water inflow, or through 

re-suspension and diffusion from the sediment layer. Herbicide removal from the 

system may occur through outflow, degradation, volatilization, and settling or 

diffusion into the underlying sediment (Neitsch et al. 2001).

The rate of herbicide degradation is an important consideration for assessing the 

effects of any herbicide on aquatic systems. Glyphosate degrades with a reported 

half-life in water from 3.5 to 70 days, depending on the rate of transfer to the 

sediment layer and testing source (SERA 1996). Based on its relatively short halflife and the large water volume of the river and wetlands, and the limited acreage 

likely to require treatment, it is not expected that any discernible effects would 

occur to these water resources as a result of herbicide treatments.

Impacts from increased visitation- All alternatives predict some increase in 

annual visitor numbers; however, the increase may vary due to increased public 

use opportunities that vary among the alternatives. Alternatives A and D predict 

the lowest annual increase, while alternatives B and C predict the highest 

increase in response to increasing public use opportunities, with alternative C 

providing the maximum public use of all the alternatives.

Benefits

Benefits to hydrology and water quality under alternative A are the same as 

those discussed in Impacts that would not vary by alternative

Adverse Impacts

Restoration and management activities on the refuge would be limited thus 

minimizing short-term impacts to hydrology and water quality. However, longterm adverse impacts to rivers and streams would be expected from further 

degradation of impacted riparian areas, which are not slated for restoration 

under current management of the refuge. In areas where restoration will occur, 

like shrubland restoration on the Thompson tract, the refuge will follow best 

management practices to minimize adverse impacts to hydrology and water 

quality. Restoration activities on the Thompson tract are not likely to impact 

hydrology and water quality as the refuge will use a combination of hand 

plantings and natural growth to achieve shrubland characteristics. Based on 

restoration methods, it is unlikely water in adjacent drainage ditches would be 

adversely impacted from soil loss.

Under alternative A, the risk of herbicide contamination, used in invasive 

plant control, to open water and wetland habitats would be minimal. Managing 

invasive species at current levels has not necessitated widespread application 

of herbicides adjacent to hydrologic resources. We would mitigate any potential 

risk by properly applying the herbicide. Currently glyphosate based herbicides 

are the primary chemicals used for refuge management operations. In some 

formulations, such as the one in the brand-name formula Rodeo®, glyphosate is 

Impacts of Alternative A 

(Current Management)

Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality
4-10 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

not a problem aquatic contaminant, because it does not contain the toxic adjuvant 

found in other formulations, such as in the brand-name formula Roundup. Also, it 

quickly adsorbs to suspended soil particles in water, rapidly making it biologically 

unavailable.

In alternative A, fishing and hunting as well as non-consumptive uses, including 

hiking, biking, horseback riding, wildlife photography, canoeing, and kayaking, 

would increase by 10 percent. That presents an increased potential for the 

contamination of the Blackwater River and its tributaries through the soil 

sedimentation from hiking, biking, horseback riding, canoeing, and kayaking into 

streams and runoff of petroleum products from parking lots. The refuge would 

provide two unimproved boat launch sites, which would benefit streambanks 

as a whole by concentrating use to specific locations; however, adverse impacts 

would likely be observed at these sites relating to streambank erosion and 

siltation. Adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality from visitor use are 

minimized, in comparison to the other alternatives, because visitor use is limited 

to designated roads and trails throughout the year. However alternative A is the 

only alternative in which we would not seek to gain jurisdiction over Camp 70/

Delta Road and improve the condition of that road. Without improvements to that 

road, public use will continue to degrade the road, causing severe erosion and 

siltation. 

We would continue to permit limited off trail use by non-hunters through 

issuance of special use permits (SUPs). Because there are so few people who 

request SUPs for off-trail use, impacts have been negligible. We do not anticipate 

an increase in requests and therefore we predict that there will continue to be 

negligible impacts.

The refuge minimizes impacts to water resources by routinely monitoring 

roads and trails for damage and by remediating problem areas. An increase in 

recreational boating activities might lead to river and stream contamination. 

Public outreach would increase awareness of issues such as invasive aquatic 

plants, introduction of invasive fish, and lead contamination. Thus, outreach 

would help to mitigate risks associated with visitor use of waterways on the 

refuge.

Benefits

Hydrologic processes will be restored to impacted wetlands and former rail 

grades and trails that bisect wetland complexes through sectional removal, 

culvert placement, permeable fill or other methods as appropriate. Restoration 

and remediation efforts would have short-term adverse effects caused by 

soil erosion and sedimentation. However, once completed, these areas would 

provide long-term benefits to wetland complexes by restoration of surface and 

subsurface flow through contiguous wetland complexes. Additionally, wetlands 

and associated rivers and streams in Canaan Valley would benefit from the 

designation of a 754 acre RNA, composed of 93% wetlands and 7% uplands, by 

limiting human intervention and preserving wetland plant communities and plant 

species that are vanishing, rare, or restricted within their range. These areas 

will also benefit if the refuge is able to gain jurisdiction over Camp 70/Delta 

Road. If the refuge owned this road it would be able to stabilize the road and 

eliminate vehicle access so as to prevent further erosion and siltation. 

In upland forested areas on the refuge, habitat restoration of former logging 

roads and skid trails would create short-term adverse impacts from soil erosion 

and sedimentation downstream. However, the short-term impacts do not 

outweigh the long-term benefits related to increasing forested blocks by reducing 

forest fragmentation. Logging road obliteration would improve downstream 

Impacts of Alternative B 

(Focal Species Emphasis)

Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-11

erosion and siltation by removing improperly placed culverts. Planting native 

seedlings and annual grasses would stabilize soils and prevent downstream 

turbidity.

Under alternative B, launch sites for canoes, kayaks, and other hand-launched 

boats would be improved to minimize risks of streambank erosion and siltation 

into refuge waterways.

Adverse Impacts

New trails, infrastructure (see Air Quality Effects from Alternative B, Table 

4.2, for a list of construction projects), observation platform along A-Frame 

Road, Environmental Education Pavilion, and parking lot construction would 

cause short-term adverse impacts from soil runoff and sedimentation into the 

refuge’s water resources. There would be additional impacts to water resources 

where new trails cross the refuge’s rivers, streams, and tributaries increasing 

the potential short-term and long-term downstream erosion and sedimentation. 

However, the refuge will adhere to best management practices for construction 

to minimize adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality. Increased visitor 

infrastructure represents an increase over alternative A in the potential for 

contaminating rivers, streams, and open water through the runoff of petroleum 

products from parking lots. In addition, a refuge shuttle service to facilitate deer 

removal along Middle Ridge would increase the potential for soil sedimentation 

and streambank erosion into Glade and/or Sand Run. The refuge would minimize 

adverse impacts by limiting the shuttle service to vehicles driven by refuge staff 

during the first three days of deer-gun season and stabilizing stream crossings to 

limit sedimentation and erosion.

The construction of a boardwalk to connect Camp 70 Road to the Brown 

Mountain Overlook trail will create short-term direct impacts to hydrology and 

water quality through trail construction. No construction other than placement 

of boardwalk pilings would be done in wetlands so there would be shortterm localized effects to hydrology and water quality during construction. By 

providing a path for users to cross over the wetlands and not through them, longterm effects to hydrology and water quality will be minimized. 

Under alternative B, visitor use would increase by 15 percent from increasing 

opportunities related to wildlife observation and photography, in comparison to 

alternative A, in part because we will be increasing trail miles on the refuge. 

The refuge would minimize impacts to water resources from designated trails by 

monitoring and remediating impacted sites. 

Wildlife photography

Mary Konchar

Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality
4-12 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Benefits

Benefits to refuge water resources are similar to alternative B although benefits 

would be lessened by increased public use and construction activities. In addition, 

benefits to wetlands would occur from the designation of an RNA. Overall 

benefits would lessen, in comparison to alternative B, as only 593 acres, composed 

of 92% wetlands and 8% uplands, would be included in the RNA.

Adverse Impacts

There would be an increase in short-term impacts from additional construction 

activities (Table 4.3) like constructing an additional observation platform 

on Camp 70 Road and providing additional trails and trail connectivity. In 

comparison to alternative B, alternative C would provide additional opportunities 

for public use, which would increase the potential for soil compaction, runoff, and 

sedimentation. In areas where public use is concentrated the impacts would likely 

become more severe over time (Green 2008). Increased vehicle access on Camp 70 

Road for wildlife observation and photography would increase the potential for 

contaminant and roadway runoff to affect adjacent wetlands and waterways. 

The improvement of Camp 70 Road for increased vehicle access, whether the 

entire or part of the road’s length, is unlikely to cause long-term adverse impacts 

to hydrology and water quality. Short-term adverse impacts would be minimal 

because the road is well established and the entire road length is within highly 

modified upland soils. As a part of road construction, the refuge would improve 

the road to minimize current impacts to water quality from erosion and siltation 

associated with one stream crossing, vernal pools within the road, and adjacent 

vernal pools. In its unimproved state, vernal pools are present on a portion 

of Camp 70 Road and habitat for wood frogs, American toads, and spotted 

salamanders would be lost with road improvement. The refuge has monitored 

these vernal pools since 2002 and has noted varying levels of disturbance 

and siltation from trail use that impacts wood frog and spotted salamander 

productivity. The refuge will evaluate constructing vernal pools in areas that 

would not be directly impacted from disturbance (e.g. bicycle wheel tracks, horse 

hoof prints).

The construction of the cross-valley trail that connects Brown Mountain Overlook 

Trail to A-Frame Road would create short-term adverse impacts to hydrology 

and water quality from trail construction. The cross-valley trail would utilize an 

existing railroad grade for a portion of its extent minimizing impacts to nearby 

wetlands and water resources. The refuge would construct a boardwalk in areas 

where hydrology and water quality would be affected by at-grade foot traffic 

and a bridge over the Little Blackwater River to minimize erosion of riverbanks. 

Adding this infrastructure is preferable because it will minimize long-term 

adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality.

In alternative C we would allow off-trail use in a zoned 2,330-acre area by 

special use permit only, for pedestrian, cross country skiing, and snowshoeing 

access. This access would be permitted only on Sundays during the hunting 

season. We would issue a maximum of 25 SUPs per month. Off-trail use would 

likely adversely impact Glade Run, Sand Run, the Blackwater River, and their 

tributaries. The refuge would minimize adverse impacts by limiting use to a 

time of year when many plants and animals are dormant or not present, and 

when the same or similar impacts would occur from hunting. However, visitor 

impacts would differ from hunting impacts as visitors are more likely to seek 

out views of streams and rivers, increasing the probability of adverse impacts 

to the refuge’s water resources. In an effort to offset these adverse impacts 

the refuge is limiting off-trail use by zoning it for a particular area and a 

particular time of year. By issuing special use permits the refuge would be able 

Impacts of Alternative C 

(Maximize Public Use)

Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-13

to gather information on the number of users, the days and duration of use, and 

approximate location of use. This information would enable the refuge to monitor 

known locations of off-trail use for damage and perform remediation measures 

as needed. For additional information on the impacts related to the off-trail use 

zone see “Effects of Public Use and Access, Public Use and Access Impacts from 

Alternative C.” 

Under alternative C, we would increase staffing and engage in a higher level 

of routine refuge management activities that may result in a somewhat higher 

potential for chemical contamination of water directly through leakage or spills, 

or indirectly through soil runoff, than alternative A. We would follow the same 

measures outlined under alternative A to minimize these effects.

Benefits

Alternative D would likely provide greater long-term benefits for water quality 

than either alternative A, B, or C. We would promote a more natural hydrologic 

regime, would monitor to determine if this causes adverse water quality effects, 

and would alter management accordingly. We would manage all refuge lands 

to achieve a mature forest cover and natural hydrologic regime similar to the 

environment that existed at Canaan Valley pre-settlement. This canopy of upland 

and wetland forest would be highly protective of the refuge soils. We would 

not burn to maintain grassland habitat types so there would be no short-term 

impacts from particulate matter. In addition, we would restore the hydrology of 

Beall, Freeland, and Harper tracts by plugging ditches and re-contouring the 

wetland areas, which would result in short-term adverse impacts.

Benefits from a designated RNA are the same as discussed in Hydrology and 

Water Quality Impacts of Alternative B. 

Adverse Impacts

Under alternative D, adverse impacts from construction activities and refuge 

shuttle service would be similar to alternative B. In addition, impacts related 

to visitor use are expected to be less under alternative D in comparison to 

alternatives B and C. While trail closures would beneficially impact hydrology 

and water quality associated with those areas, trail closures would also 

concentrate use on designated trails potentially increasing impacts to water 

resources. In addition, off-trail access would be the same as in alternative A, 

which increases beneficial impacts to hydrology and water quality in comparison 

to alternative C. 

We would continue to control invasive plants with herbicides, which would have 

some minimal potential to affect water quality as discussed in Impacts that would 

not vary by alternative. However, we would no longer use prescribed burning as 

a tool for grassland management, therefore eliminating the possibility of burned 

particulate matter creating short-term reductions in water quality.

Soils are the structural matrix and nutrient source for plant productivity at the 

refuge and must be protected to sustain the variety of wetland, riparian, and 

upland habitats that would meet our habitat and species management goals. 

Overall, the soils of the refuge are productive and in good condition, with no 

substantive erosion, compaction, or contamination problems. In certain areas 

such as where Mauch Chunk-derived soils have been exposed from land use prior 

to refuge acquisition, we would manage these to limit any human disturbance and 

work to reduce erosion through restoration and soil stabilization practices.

Impacts of Alternative D 

(Focus on Managing for 

Historical Habitat)

Effects on Soils

Effects on Soils
4-14 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

We evaluated and compared the management actions proposed for each of the 

refuge CCP alternatives on the basis of their potential to benefit or adversely 

affect upland soils and soils of the refuge’s floodplains, pond and lake shorelines, 

and riparian areas. Impacts of the alternatives to wetland soils are discussed in 

the wetlands section.

We compared the benefits of the alternatives from actions that would protect 

soils from erosion, compaction, or contamination or that would restore eroded, 

compacted, or contaminated soils, including the:

■ Protection of refuge lands from development.

■ Habitat restoration on former access roads, old railroad grades, logging roads, 

and trails to provide opportunities to restore soils.

■ Remediation of impacted wetlands.

The potential adverse soil effects of the refuge management alternatives that 

were evaluated included impacts from:

■ construction of buildings, observation platforms, parking lots, access roads, 

and interpretive trails;

■ removal of unnecessary structures including old hunting cabins, barns, and 

hunting platform structures;

■ forest and early-succession management activities, including tree-cutting and 

mowing, possible grazing and use of roads and skid trails;

■ hiking, biking, horseback riding, or other refuge visitor activities;

■ wildland fire suppression policies and methods; and

■ providing refuge visitor activities and hunt programs.

Benefits

Soil stability has improved since refuge acquisition due to the prohibition of all 

vehicles from sensitive habitats and allowing vehicle access only on designated 

roads. We will continue to maintain native vegetative cover on the refuge that 

minimizes soil losses through erosion. All the land the Service now owns or 

would purchase within the refuge acquisition boundary would remain under 

Service management, thereby eliminating the potential for the soil impacts of 

development or other use. We will continue to prohibit recreational activities such 

as all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) that would damage soils on the refuge. Public use 

trails, boat launch sites, wildlife observation areas, parking lots, and other highuse areas would be well designed and maintained to keep impacts on the soil to a 

minimum. We will note and correct any erosion problems during routine refuge 

monitoring.

Regardless of which CCP alternative we select, we will continue to use best 

management practices in all activities that might affect refuge soils to ensure 

that we maintain soil productivity. 

Adverse Impacts

Adverse impacts to soils would likely occur from restoration activities, habitat 

management for focal species, invasive species control, refuge infrastructure 

construction, and activities related to wildlife observation and photography.

Impacts That Would Not 

Vary by Alternative

Effects on Soils
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-15

Restoration Activities—Replanting may cause the short-term disturbance, 

compaction, and localized erosion of soil, depending on site conditions and 

methods of site preparation. The use of best management practices would 

minimize those effects. In the long-term, reestablishing native species would help 

restore and maintain soil productivity at those sites.

Prescribed Fire—We would reserve the options to use prescribed fire in all 

alternatives for controlling invasive plants if necessary and, in alternatives A, 

B, and C for managing grasslands as well. We would conduct all prescribed 

burns under a strict prescription and in optimal weather conditions to minimize 

concerns about smoke and the risk of wildfire. We would maintain all fires within 

their prescriptions to minimize the degradation of resources, although impacts 

could occur in small areas. 

Prescribed fire elevates surface temperatures; mineralizes detritus, litter, and 

standing dead material; volatilizes some nutrients and organic matter; alters the 

water-holding capacity of soil; and alters its populations of micro- and macrofauna (Barbour et al. 1999).

The effects on organic matter depend on the intensity and duration of the 

fire. Intense, long-duration fires consume more organic matter than brief, low 

intensity fires. Nitrogen compounds volatilize and are lost at temperatures of 

100–200°C; in contrast, calcium, sodium, and magnesium usually are deposited 

on the soil surface and recycled. At temperatures of 200–300°C, large amounts of 

organic substances are lost, which can reduce the cation exchange and moisture 

holding capacity of soils.

Fire usually elevates soil pH, because of cation release; that effect is particularly 

evident in acidic soils. Fire may enhance soil microbial nitrogen fixation, due 

to the mineralization of nutrients and elevated pH levels in soils (Barbour et al. 

1999).

The removal of litter and duff may initially facilitate water infiltration; 

nevertheless, the loss of litter and blackened soils also mediate evaporation. 

That results in an overall reduction in the water-holding capacity of soil. There 

is little change in water repellency with cool fires (below 176°C); moderately hot 

fires increase water repellence (176–204°C). Extremely hot fires (above 204°C) 

volatilize hydrophobic substances and destroy soil water repellence (Debano et 

al. 1998). After moderately intense fires, runoff may increase due to lowered 

infiltration, and erosion may result.

Fire usually reduces fungi, but increase soil bacteria. It may remove soil and 

litter pathogens. Fire often destroys nitrifying bacteria. Legumes and other 

nitrogen-fixing plants often must recover nitrogen losses due to volatilization, as 

the recovery of nitrifying bacteria is slow (Barbour et al. 1999).

We will burn small-scale prescribed fires on confined areas, in short durations 

and low to moderate intensities. Such fires also consume only part of the duff/

litter layer, and rarely transfer major amounts of heat into the soils. We would 

use prescribed fires to remove litter and light fuels and avoid adverse effects of 

severe, hot wildfires on soil resources.

Considering all the potential methods of treatment, we expect negligible direct or 

indirect impacts on upland soils, as the effects are limited due to short duration 

and low to moderate intensity, and confined to the project area. We expect none 

of the proposed actions to affect adversely the soils or water quality over the 

long-term.

Effects on Soils
4-16 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Haying and Mowing—Depending on the soil 

conditions and vegetative ground cover, haying 

and mowing can affect soils through rutting 

and compaction, and through the removal of 

soil protective vegetation. Tracked equipment 

is not used in haying and mowing operations, 

and the operations are not done when the soil is 

saturated. In addition, haying and mowing would 

be conducted on a rotational basis typically of 

3-4 years to maintain grassland habitat while 

minimizing any soil impacts. Since haying will 

primarily occur in dry grassland areas, impacts 

to wetlands and reptiles and amphibians will 

be minimal. This activity poses little additional 

impact to current grassland management actions 

by refuge personnel.

Invasive Plant Control with Herbicides—In all the alternatives, we would use 

herbicides approved by the Service to control invasive plants. While the refuge 

would consider using various Service approved herbicides, based on current use 

the refuge expects to use the herbicide glyphosate, formulated as Roundup® or 

Rodeo®, most commonly. As such, the refuge is focusing its discussion on impacts 

of glyphosate. 

Glyphosate would not adversely affect the soils at the sites. Studies have shown 

that once Roundup reaches the soil, it strongly adsorbs to soil particles. With 

its half-life of 3.5 to 70 days, glyphosate degrades readily in soil (Weber 1991). 

Field and field simulation studies on glyphosate found no direct effect on basal 

soil respiration, microbial activity, or microbial biomass when glyphosate was 

applied at a rate of 5 kg/ha (SERA 1996), which is three times greater than the 

application rate proposed for treating invasive species on open land at the refuge. 

Therefore, no impact on soils would result from the application of glyphosate to 

wildlife habitat or ecological restoration sites.

Applications of glyphosate according to label directions for the use of Roundup, 

Accord®, and Rodeo herbicides do not have a negative impact upon microflora. 

Experiments on glyphosate-treated and untreated soils revealed no major 

difference in their microbial population or types or the degradation of sucrose 

(Rueppel et al. 1977). The degradation of cellulose, starch, protein, and leaf litter 

in soils treated with glyphosate was essentially the same as that in untreated 

soils. Studies also found that soil residues of glyphosate did not affect nitrogen 

fixation and nitrification.

The presence of glyphosate is unlikely to affect the beneficial mycorrhizal fungi, 

which help plants absorb water and nutrients, because the herbicide birnds 

tightly to soil particles and is not available for uptake. The weight of evidence 

from several studies (Monsanto 2002) shows that actual use rates do not produce 

concentrations that would adversely affect fungi.

Earthworms are important components of ecosystems, and a favored food of 

American woodcock, one of the refuge’s focal species. The impact of agricultural 

practices on earthworms has been extensively reviewed by other scientific, 

ecological, and agricultural organizations. In the Biology and Ecology of 

Earthworms (1996), Edwards and Bohlen examine the effect of many agricultural 

products on earthworms. The authors rank products using a scale of zero 

Mowing Thompson Tract 

with Batwing Mower

Ken Sturm/USFWS

Effects on Soils
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-17

(relatively non-toxic) to three (extremely toxic). Glyphosate ranks zero. The 

manufacturer, Monsanto, indicated that it has conducted several studies, 

which demonstrate that glyphosate and Roundup® herbicide are harmless to 

earthworms at concentrations greatly exceeding what the normal application 

of the product would produce. There was no mortality at the highest test 

concentration of 5,000 parts per million (ppm). No adverse effect of any kind 

was seen with a Roundup concentration of 500 ppm. Concentrations in the soil 

immediately after application depend on the amount of material intercepted by 

target plant material, and are typically less than 1 ppm.

Wildlife Observation and Photography—Trail use on the refuge would adversely 

impact soils through compaction, erosion, and sedimentation. In all alternatives, 

the refuge will allow hiking, biking, and horseback riding on designated trails. 

Hiking—Soils can be compacted and eroded as a result of continued use 

of pedestrian routes. The Mauch Chunk-derived soil in Canaan Valley is 

particularly vulnerable to mechanical erosion when the vegetation has been 

removed (Rizzo 2002). If compacted, Mauch Chunk soils can facilitate rapid water 

runoff that accelerates erosion down slope (Rizzo 2002). Although it is unlikely 

foot travel would create highly erosive conditions, lug soles on hiking boots can 

exacerbate the problem.

Bicycles—Bicycle wheels can cause physical impacts to soil surfaces. Cessford 

(1995) notes the shearing action of wheels creates damage to roads and trails, 

which increases when trail conditions are wet or when traveling up a steep slope. 

When traveling down slope, skidding with hard braking can result in loosening 

soil surfaces, which leads to rutting and erosion by channeling water down 

wheel ruts. The Mauch Chunk-derived soil would be particularly susceptible to 

mechanical erosion that may occur when bicycle wheels skid or spin over the soil 

surface.

Horseback Riding—Horses would cause adverse impacts to soils when soils are 

wet which can directly affect plant growth and survival (Kuss 1986). Horseback 

riding has caused braided roads and trails in excessively muddy trail sections 

(Summer 1986). Weaver and Dale (1978) found horse use caused a greater loss of 

vegetation cover, wider and deeper roads and trails, and greater soil compaction 

when compared to hiker use on meadow and forest trail conditions. Horses may 

cause trail erosion by loosening the soil and increasing soil particle detachment 

under both wet and dry trail conditions (Deluca et al. 1998). While horse use 

would increase the impacts to soils through compaction and erosion, the refuge 

has attempted to minimize those impacts by only allowing horseback riding on 

roads open for vehicle use and trails modified through grading and with proper 

drainage located predominantly on upland soils. There are trail sections where 

Mauch Chunk-derived soils, which have high erosion and compaction potentials, 

have been exposed through activities that occurred prior to refuge acquisition. 

The refuge would monitor trails to ensure that damage is not occurring 

and would take actions to remediate the trail(s) to improve soil conditions. 

Examples of remediation measures the refuge might take include: recontouring, 

revegetating, and restoring or creating proper drainage patterns to degraded 

trails.

The refuge will minimize adverse impacts by using its trail/route checklist to 

determine whether the existing or new trail meets established criteria and 

addresses impacts to soil compaction potential, erodibility, and suitability. If it 

does not meet the checklist criteria, appropriate modifications will be made to 

trail routes either by locating a more suitable site or adding infrastructure to 

minimize short-term, localized, and long-term impacts to soils.

Effects on Soils
4-18 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Damage from Fire—Soil damage from fires or from erosion on fire-damaged 

sites is unlikely to occur on the refuge. Wildland fires are suppressed when 

fire fighter and public safety are at risk. Although wildland fires rarely occur 

in the Canaan Valley area, we will protect against wildland fire whenever it 

threatens human life, property, and natural or cultural resources. Fires will be 

suppressed in a prompt, safe, aggressive, and cost effective manner to minimize 

adverse impacts to resources and acreage. Suppression methods will be chosen 

which cause minimum resource damage while accomplishing effective incident 

stabilization. For more information on the refuge’s objectives and strategies in 

regards to prescribed and wild fires refer to the Fire Management Plan (2004). 

Regardless of alternative, site conditions including soil condition, elevation, 

slope, aspect, and hydrology would be the ultimate determinant of the habitat 

management potential for any particular site on the refuge. No site would be 

managed in a manner inconsistent with its recognized potential.

Benefits

Benefits to soils under alternative A are the same as those discussed in Impacts 

that would not vary by alternative.

Adverse Impacts

The refuge would be most constrained under alternative A in terms of 

implementing methods to reduce soil loss from wetland areas impacted by 

erosion and sedimentation. Our management efforts would be limited to habitat 

inventory, mapping, and monitoring of impacted wetland areas and soil loss but 

remediation would be minimal in these areas. In areas where restoration will 

occur, like shrubland restoration on the Thompson tract, the refuge will follow 

best management practices to minimize adverse impacts to soils. Short-term 

localized adverse impacts to soils would be expected where the refuge will handplant native shrubs to enhance natural growth. Based on restoration methods, 

soil compaction and loss would be minimal.

Over the long-term, the risk of erosion and sedimentation problems that might 

affect these habitats would increase with increased visitor usage and trail use. 

At current levels the trail system supports hiking, biking, and horseback riding 

and each trail is designated for the uses its soil types are capable of supporting. 

Wetland complexes adjacent to active trails, like the Middle Valley trail and 

South Glade Run Crossing trail, would be of particular concern as degradation 

from hiking, biking, and horseback riding would increase the potential for soil 

compaction, erosion, and sedimentation into adjacent wetlands and stream. 

Although off-trial use is allowed by special use permit, there are currently not 

enough off-trail users to cause any impacts, and we would do not expect the user 

level to change in the next 15 years. 

Benefits

Benefits to soils would likely increase in alternative B, in contrast to alternative 

A through the remediation of impacted wetland areas and recontouring and 

reforesting of old logging/skid roads and trails. We would apply best management 

practices to restore any sites with eroded soils and protect the soil with an 

appropriate native plant cover.

The refuge will construct a boardwalk connecting Camp 70 Loop trail to Brown 

Mountain Overlook trail over saturated areas to protect sensitive wetland soils 

from compaction. No construction other than placement of boardwalk pilings 

would be done in wetlands so there should be negligible, localized effects to 

wetland soils. The boardwalk would provide long-term benefits by providing a 

Impacts of Alternative A 

(Current Management)

Impacts of Alternative B 

(Focal Species Emphasis)

Effects on Soils
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-19

means for visitors to cross over these sensitive wetland soils without walking 

through them. 

Adverse Impacts

Under the expanded construction program noted in the section on Air Quality, 

there would be localized soil compaction and loss of productive soil where soils 

are removed or surfaced for observation platforms, environmental education 

pavilion, parking lots, kiosks, boat launches, roads, and trails and in adjacent 

areas where vehicles and heavy equipment are used for site access and 

preparation work. These impacts would constitute unavoidable adverse impacts 

from refuge infrastructure improvements but would comprise, in total, only a 

small percentage of the 16,183 acres within the current refuge boundary. In 

addition, a refuge shuttle service to facilitate deer removal along Middle Ridge 

would increase the potential for soil sedimentation and streambank erosion into 

Glade and/or Sand Run. The refuge would minimize adverse impacts by limiting 

the shuttle service to vehicles driven by refuge staff during the first few days 

of deer-gun season and stabilizing stream crossings to limit sedimentation 

and erosion. Offsetting these soil impacts would be reclamation of natural soil 

productivity on restored wetlands and uplands, and obliteration, recontouring, 

and revegetating old logging roads and trails on the refuge.

Restoration activities—There would be short-term, localized soil disturbance, 

compaction, and erosion from restoration activities where stand cutting and 

clearing in upland and wetland forests, and where construction of white-tailed 

deer exclosures are implemented to protect rare and sensitive plants from whitetailed deer over-browse. We would minimize these impacts by adhering strictly to 

best management practices for our forest management operations. 

Successional Management—We would evaluate the techniques to perform 

successional habitat management based on the best management practices to 

achieve vegetation objectives. Cutting may be completed using tracked vehicles 

which could compact soils during management operations. Potential use of 

grazing animals may also compact soils and cause localized erosion. We would 

conduct cutting operations with heavy equipment in upland areas and utilize 

existing skid roads when possible to avoid excessive soil compaction and erosion. 

Cutting during winter months when soils are frozen is also an option to reduce 

the impact. Limiting the area grazing animals are permitted within and the 

duration of their stay will help prevent excessive soil compaction and erosion. 

Fencing will ensure animals remain within the desired management unit.

Wildlife Observation and Photography—Adverse impacts to soils would increase 

in alternative B in comparison to alternative A, with an increase in the number 

of trails, trail miles, and increased estimated visitor use. Construction and 

maintenance of trails would result in short-term and long-term adverse impacts 

to soils. To provide connectivity to already existing trails, three new trails are 

proposed in alternative B. Impacts to soils will be evaluated separately because 

these trails cross through a variety of soil types and the degree of impact differs 

on a localized level. In cases where exact trail location has not been determined, 

the refuge plans to use existing logging roads and avoid wetlands where possible 

to minimize the impact from and extent of new trail development. When not 

possible to avoid wetlands careful consideration of trail development and impacts 

will be conducted and alternatives evaluated in a subsequent environmental 

assessment. New trail construction, estimated at no greater than 7.5 miles, will 

cause short-term impacts to soils. Impacts from off-trail use will be the same as 

alternative A.

Effects on Soils
4-20 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

The creation of a boardwalk to connect Camp 70/Delta 13 trail to Brown 

Mountain Overlook trail will create short-term direct impacts to soils through 

trail construction. No construction other than placement of boardwalk pilings 

would be done in wetlands so there would be short-term localized effects to 

wetland soils during construction and potential for long-term impacts on wetland 

plants from the shading effect produced by the boardwalk itself. The purpose of 

the boardwalk is to provide a new trail connection which will help prevent greater 

long-term negative impacts to sensitive wetlands soils. By providing a path for 

users to cross over the wetlands and not through them, long-term effects to 

unsuitable and highly compactable soils will be avoided. 

Over the long-term, the risk of erosion and sedimentation problems that might 

affect these habitats would increase with increased visitor usage and trail use. 

At current levels the trail system supports hiking, biking, and horseback riding 

and each trail is designated for the uses its soil types are capable of supporting. 

Wetland complexes adjacent to active trails, like the Middle Valley trail and 

South Glade Run Crossing trail, would be of particular concern as degradation 

from hiking, biking, and horseback riding would increase the potential for soil 

compaction, erosion, and sedimentation into adjacent wetlands and streams.

Benefits

Benefits to soils would be similar to alternative B although they would be 

reduced from increased visitor use, increased trail miles, and increased visitor 

infrastructure. 

Adverse Impacts

Short-term and long-term adverse impacts to soils are greatest in alternative C 

than any of the other alternatives. Under alternative C the refuge will maximize 

public use opportunities, increase trail miles, and increase visitor infrastructure 

(see Table 4.3) in comparison to alternative B.

Camp 70 road improvements in alternative C, 

whether the entire or part of the road’s length, 

would occur on a highly modified substrate that 

was initially graded for vehicle use. Because of 

this, adverse impacts to soils would be minimal. 

There are areas along the road where Mauch 

Chunk-derived soils have been exposed and are 

highly susceptible to compaction and erosion. The 

refuge would seek to improve these sensitive road 

segments during road improvement projects to 

prevent further damage from compaction and 

erosion.

The creation of a cross valley trail from Brown 

Mountain Overlook to A-Frame Road requires 

crossing through approximately one mile of 

wetlands that contain rare plant communities. 

These soils are highly susceptible to compaction 

and the extent of possible damage to soil 

integrity is severe (Bell 2001). Given these soil characteristics, trail creation and 

maintenance would directly and adversely impact soils and impact sensitive plant 

communities. A portion of this route will follow an existing railroad grade, thus 

mitigating soil impacts where the railroad grade is in good condition. About 2,200 

feet of the railroad grade are completely inundated and will be circumvented 

Impacts of Alternative C 

(Maximize Public Use)

Youth Conservation Corps building a 

boardwalk extension

USFWS

Effects on Soils
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-21

by using a new trail. The refuge would construct boardwalks in areas where 

sensitive wetland soils would likely be affected by foot traffic and a bridge over 

the Little Blackwater River where riverbanks would be susceptible to erosion. 

Adding this infrastructure is necessary to prevent or minimize adverse impacts 

to sensitive wetland soils. As in Alternative B, this new trail construction 

which requires the use of undisturbed habitat or could impact wetlands will be 

evaluated fully in a subsequent environmental assessment.

Off-trail use would adversely impact soils through compaction, erosion, and 

sedimentation. Impacts might be minimized as users would be spread over a 

large area. However, it will be difficult for the refuge to locate, monitor, and 

remediate impacted soils due to unpredictable visitor use and spatial extent of 

the off-trail use zone. Soils associated with steep slopes and wetlands are likely to 

be the most impacted (Bell 2002, Rizzo 2002). In an effort to offset these adverse 

impacts the refuge is limiting visitor use to 25 permits per month on Sundays 

during the hunting season. By issuing special use permits the refuge would be 

able to gather information on the number of users, the days and duration of use, 

and approximate location of use. This information would enable the refuge to 

monitor known locations of off-trail use for damage and perform remediation 

measures as needed. For additional information on the impacts related to the 

off-trail use zone see “Effects of Public Use and Access, Public Use and Access 

Impacts from Alternative B.”

Benefits

Beneficial impacts from alternative D are similar to those discussed in “Soil 

Impacts of Alternative B.” Soils would additionally benefit from limited vehicle 

access (same as alternative A) and a decrease in trail miles as a result of trail 

closures or changes from proposed trail connections in alternative B. 

Adverse Impacts

Under alternative D, soils would be the least impacted in comparison to the 

other alternatives. Alternative D limits vehicle access (same as alternative A), 

decreases trail miles, and does not provide an off-trail use zone as discussed in 

alternative C. While trail closures would beneficially impact associated soils, 

increased concentrations of visitors on designated trails might potentially 

increase soil damage. Those impacts would be minimal because trails were 

designated for use based on the soil’s ability to support those uses. Where 

impacts occur the refuge would perform remediation and restoration measures.

In support of analyzing the economic consequences of the actions proposed in the 

four draft CCP/EA alternatives, we enlisted the assistance of social scientists 

and economists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) – Fort Collins Science 

Center. Their analysis, a regional socioeconomic impact analysis, provides a 

means of estimating and comparing how current management under alternative 

A, and proposed management under alternatives B, C, and D, could affect the 

local and regional socioeconomic environment. In this chapter, we present the 

economic impacts first, followed by the social impacts.

For refuge CCP planning, an economic analysis provides a means of estimating 

how current management (No Action Alternative) and proposed management 

activities (alternatives) affect the local economy. This type of analysis provides 

two critical pieces of information: 1) it illustrates a refuge’s contribution to the 

local community; and 2) it can help in determining whether economic effects are 

or are not a real concern in choosing among management alternatives. 

Impacts of Alternative D 

(Focus on Managing for 

Historical Habitat)

Effects on the 

Socioeconomic 

Environment

Effects on the Regional 

Economy

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment
4-22 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

It is important to note that the economic value of a refuge encompasses more 

than just the impacts on the regional economy. Refuges also provide substantial 

nonmarket values (values for items not exchanged in established markets) such 

as maintaining endangered species, preserving wetlands, educating future 

generations, and adding stability to the ecosystem (Carver and Caudill, 2007). 

However, quantifying these types of nonmarket values is beyond the scope of this 

study. 

The refuge management activities of economic concern in this analysis are:

■ Refuge purchases of goods and services within the local community.

■ Refuge personnel salary spending.

■ Spending in the local community by refuge visitors.

■ Revenues generated from Refuge Revenue Sharing. 

For the full report on economic impacts, refer to appendix H. 

Economic input-output models are commonly used to determine how economic 

sectors will and will not be affected by demographic, economic, and policy 

changes. The economic impacts of the management alternatives for Canaan 

Valley National Wildlife Refuge were estimated using IMPLAN (Impact 

Analysis for Planning), a regional input-output modeling system developed by 

the USDA Forest Service. IMPLAN is a computerized database and modeling 

system that provides a regional input-output analysis of economic activity in 

terms of 10 industrial groups involving more than five hundred economic sectors 

(Olson and Lindall, 1999). The IMPLAN model draws upon data collected by the 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group from multiple federal and state sources including the 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Census 

Bureau (Olson and Lindall, 1999). 

For each alternative, regional economic effects from the IMPLAN model are 

reported for the following categories: 

■ Local Output represents the change in local sales or revenue.

■ Personal Income represents the change in employee income in the region that 

is generated from a change in regional output. 

■ Employment represents the change in number of jobs generated in the region 

from a change in regional output. IMPLAN estimates for employment include 

both full time and part time workers, which are measured in total jobs.

The economic impacts reported in this report are on an annual basis in 2006 

dollars. Large management changes often take several years to achieve. The 

estimates reported for alternatives B, C, and D represent the final economic 

effects after all changes in management have been implemented. 

Table 4.4 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts of all refuge 

management activities for alternative A in Tucker County and the city of Elkins. 

Under alternative A, refuge management activities directly related to all 

refuge operations generate an estimated $1.62 million in local output, 15.6 jobs 

and $344 thousand in personal income in the local economy. Including direct, 

indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would generate total economic 

impacts of $1.95 million in local output, 20.9 jobs and $442.7 thousand in personal 

Methods for a Regional 

Economic Impact Analysis

Impacts of Alternative A

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-23

income. In 2006, total personal income was estimated at $666.3 million and total 

employment was estimated at 9,488 jobs for Tucker County and the city of Elkins 

(U.S. Department of Commerce, 2008, IMPLAN 2006 data). Total economic 

impacts associated with refuge operations under alternative A represent less 

than one percent of total income (0.1%) and total employment (0.2%) in the overall 

Tucker County and the city of Elkins economy. Total economic effects of refuge 

operations play a much larger role in the Canaan Valley communities near the 

refuge such as Davis, Thomas, and Parsons where most of the refuge’s public use 

related economic activity occurs. 

Table 4.4. Economic impacts of all refuge management activities for alternative A (2006$).

 Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Refuge revenue sharing

Direct effects $85,300 $28,400 1

Total effects $103,100 $33,900 1.2

Refuge administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects $475,200 $87,800 3.8

Total effects $566,200 $116,200 5.1

Public use activities

Direct effects $1,062,000 $227,700 10.8

Total effects $1,278,500 $292,600 14.6

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects $1,622,500 $344,000 15.6

Total effects $1,947,800 $442,700 20.9

Table 4.5 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts of all refuge 

management activities for alternative B in Tucker County and the city of 

Elkins. Under alternative B, refuge management activities directly related to 

all refuge operations generate an estimated $1.71 million in local output, 16.3 

jobs and $361.6 thousand in personal income in the local economy. Including 

direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would generate total 

economic impacts of $2.05 million in local output, 21.9 jobs and $465.9 thousand in 

personal income. Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under 

alternative B represent well less than one percent of total income (0.1%) and total 

employment (0.2%) in the overall Tucker County and the city of Elkins economy. 

Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the Canaan 

Valley communities near the refuge such as Davis, Thomas, and Parsons where 

most of the refuge’s public use related economic activity occurs.

Impacts of Alternative B

Spring peeper on alder leaf

Ken Sturm/USFWS

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment
4-24 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Table 4.5 Summary of all refuge management activities for alternative B (2006$).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Direct effects $85,300 $28,400 1

Total effects $103,100 $33,900 1.2

Refuge administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects $610,000 $112,900 4.9

Total effects $726,900 $149,400 6.6

Public use activities

Direct effects $1,074,100 $230,100 10.9

Total effects $1,292,900 $295,600 14.7

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects $1,769,400 $371,400 16.8

Total effects $2,122,900 $478,900 22.5

Table 4.6 summarizes the change in economic effects associated with refuge 

operations under alternative B as compared to alternative A. Due to increases 

in refuge administration and visitation, alternative B would generate $105.4 

thousand more in local output, 1 additional job and $23.3 thousand more in 

personal income as compared to alternative A.

Table 4.6. Change in economic impacts under alternative B compared to alternative A (2006$).

 Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Direct effects $0 $0 0

Total effects $0 $0 0

Refuge Administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects +$134,800 +$25,100 +1.1

Total effects +$160,700 +$33,200 +1.5

Public use activities

Direct effects +$12,100 +$2,400 +0.1

Total effects +$14,400 +$3,100 +0.1

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects +$146,900 +$27,500 +1.2

Total effects +$175,100 +$36,500 +1.6

Table 4.7 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts of all refuge 

management activities for alternative C in Tucker County and the city of 

Elkins. Under alternative C, refuge management activities directly related to 

all refuge operations generate an estimated $1.93 million in local output, 18.4 

jobs and $405.5 thousand in personal income in the local economy. Including 

direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would generate total 

economic impacts of $2.32 million in local output, 24.6 jobs and $523.2 thousand in 

personal income. Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under 

alternative C represent well less than one percent of total income (0.1%) and total 

Impacts of Alternative C

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-25

employment (0.3%) in the overall Tucker County and the city of Elkins economy. 

Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the Canaan 

Valley communities near the refuge such as Davis, Thomas, and Parsons where 

most of the refuge’s public use related economic activity occurs.

Table 4.7. Summary of all refuge management activities for alternative C (2006$).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Direct effects $85,300 $28,400 1

Total effects $103,100 $33,900 1.2

Refuge administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects $674,500 $126,600 5.5

Total effects $805,800 $167,600 7.4

Public use activities

Direct effects $1,168,100 $250,500 11.9

Total effects $1,406,200 $321,800 16.0

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects $1,927,900 $405,500 18.4

Total effects $2,315,100 $523,200 24.6

Table 4.8 summarizes the change in economic effects associated with refuge 

operations under alternative C as compared to alternative A. Due to increases 

in refuge administration and visitation, alternative C would generate $367.3 

thousand more in local output, 3.7 additional jobs and $80.6 thousand more in 

personal income as compared to alternative A.

Table 4.8. Change in economic impacts under alternative C compared to alternative A (2006$).

 Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Direct effects $0 $0 0

Total effects $0 $0 0

Refuge Administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects +$199,300 +$38,800 +1.7

Total effects +$239,600 +$51,400 +2.3

Public use activities

Direct effects +$106,100 +$22,800 +1.1

Total effects +$127,700 +$29,200 +1.4

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects +$305,400 +$61,600 +2.8

Total effects +$36,300 +$80,600 +3.7

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment
4-26 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Table 4.9 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts of all refuge 

management activities for alternative D in Tucker County and the city of 

Elkins. Under alternative D, refuge management activities directly related to 

all refuge operations generate an estimated $1.67 million in local output, 15.9 

jobs and $352.3 thousand in personal income in the local economy. Including 

direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would generate total 

economic impacts of $2.01 million in local output, 21.4 jobs and $453.6 thousand in 

personal income. Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under 

alternative D represent well less than one percent of total income (0.1%) and total 

employment (0.2%) in the overall Tucker County and the city of Elkins economy. 

Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the Canaan 

Valley communities near the refuge such as Davis, Thomas and Parsons where 

most of the refuge’s public use related economic activity occurs.

Table 4.9. Summary of all refuge management activities for alternative D (2006$).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Direct effects $85,300 $28,400 1

Total effects $103,100 $33,900 1.2

Refuge administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects $526,500 $96,100 4.1

Total effects $626,000 $127,00 5.6

Public use activities

Direct effects $1,062,000 $227,700 10.8

Total effects $1,278,500 $292,600 14.6

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects $1,673,800 $352,300 15.9

Total effects $2,007,600 $453,600 21.4

Table 4.10 summarizes the change in economic effects associated with refuge 

operations under alternative D as compared to alternative A. Due to increases in 

refuge administration; alternative D would generate $59.8 thousand more in local 

output, half of an additional job and $10.9 thousand more in personal income as 

compared to alternative A.

Table 4.10. Change in economic impacts under alternative D compared to alternative A (2006$).

 Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Direct effects $0 $0 0

Total effects $0 $0 0

Refuge Administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects +$51,300 +$8,300 +0.3

Total effects +$59,800 +$10,900 +0.5

Public use activities

Direct effects $0 $0 0

Total effects $0 $0 0

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects +$51,300 +$8,300 +0.3

Total effects +$59,800 +$10,900 +0.5

Impacts of Alternative D

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-27

Under alternative A, refuge management activities directly related to all refuge 

operations generate an estimated $1.62 million in local output, 15.6 jobs and 

$344 thousand in personal income in the local economy (Table 4.4). Including 

direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities under alternative A 

would generate total economic impacts of $1.95 million in local output, 20.9 

jobs and $442.7 thousand in personal income. Likewise, alternative B refuge 

management activities directly related to all refuge operations would have an 

aggregate impact of an estimated $1.71 million in local output, 16.3 jobs, and $362 

thousand in personal income. Economic impacts of alternative C include a direct 

effect of an estimated $1.93 million in local output, 18.4 jobs, and $405 thousand 

in personal income. Impacts from alternative D are estimated at $1.67 million 

in local output, 15.9 jobs, and $352 thousand in personal income. Total economic 

impacts associated with refuge operations across all alternatives represent 

well less than one percent of total income and total employment in the overall 

Tucker County and the city of Elkins economy. Total economic effects of refuge 

operations play a much larger role in the Canaan Valley communities near the 

refuge such as Davis, Thomas and Parsons where most of the refuge’s public use 

related economic activity occurs.

Social science researchers at the USGS-Fort Collins Science Center conducted 

a stakeholder assessment in February 2007. Information on stakeholder 

preferences and values is based on this evaluation (Sexton, Burkardt, Swann and 

Stewart, 2009). The first step in the stakeholder evaluation was identification 

of the key groups and individuals with an interest or role in the Canaan Valley 

refuge planning process. One hundred stakeholders were identified and invited 

to meet with USGS researchers one-on-one at Canaan Valley State Park in 

late winter of 2007. Each stakeholder was given a set of 47 statements about 

key refuge issues and asked to sort and rank these statements from “strongly 

agree” to “strongly disagree.” Five prevailing perspectives were identified 

related to these key Refuge issues: Ecological Preservation; Recreational 

Access; Traditional Wildlife Management; Wildlife First/Recreation Second; and 

Economic Development. The Ecological Preservation Perspective emphasizes 

protecting wildlife and habitats, with wetland protection being especially 

important. The Recreational Access Perspective places the greatest emphasis on 

recreational access to the refuge. Stakeholders from this perspective embrace 

a larger landscape perspective that includes trail connectivity with neighboring 

public lands as well as continuous, looped, and easy trails on the refuge 

geared toward families, the elderly, and the disabled. The Traditional Wildlife 

Management Perspective emphasizes management for game species such as deer, 

grouse, and woodcock. This perspective supports an increase in deer harvest 

(both for recreation and for protecting refuge resources) and an increase in 

hunter access. The Wildlife First/Recreation Second Perspective is similar to the 

Ecological Preservation Perspective in that its primary concerns are protecting 

wetlands and water quality, acquiring lands within the refuge acquisition 

boundary, and controlling invasive species. What makes this perspective unique 

is that it values the importance of recreational access on the refuge, so long as 

resources can be protected and the refuge mission can be upheld. Finally, the 

Economic Development Perspective is primarily concerned with maintaining 

and improving the economic vitality of the valley. This perspective supports 

development, particularly industrial development, and sees the refuge and other 

public lands as an impediment to growth. 

The information gathered in the USGS stakeholder analysis was used to predict 

the potential social effects of the proposed alternatives.

Summary and Conclusions

Effects on the Social 

Environment

Methods for the Social 

Science Analysis

Effects on the Social Environment
4-28 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Beneficial Impacts:

This alternative helps the Refuge provide a quality priority public use and 

complies with existing State hunt seasons and regulations. Refuge hunting helps 

maintain healthy animal populations. In particular 

the deer hunt program addresses the biological 

impacts of the large deer population, which may be 

seen as beneficial by those holding the Ecological 

Preservation perspective. Hunting is part of the 

cultural heritage of the region, and this alternative 

supports that heritage. Hunting generally causes 

only minimum disturbance to birds because it 

occurs at a time of year when many avian species 

have left the area. Those holding the Ecological 

Preservation and Traditional Wildlife Management 

perspectives are likely to see value in this. Hunt 

seasons also occur during a time of year when 

visitation on the refuge is low because of snow and 

cold weather. This helps to minimize conflicts and 

potential safety issues between hunters and other 

refuge users.

This alternative provides off-trail access for hunters to assist in the tracking 

or recovery of game. This may lead to more productive hunts, increased hunter 

satisfaction, and protection of the refuge’s resources. The use of pursuit dogs 

for some upland game hunting may also increase hunter satisfaction and 

hunt productivity. The Refuge also provides hunting blinds. Additionally, this 

alternative includes provisions for cooperative deer hunts (with surrounding 

landowners) as a means of managing deer population size. Each of these activities 

is valued by those holding a Traditional Wildlife Management perspective, 

partially because more productive hunts will support the goal of deer population 

management. Under this alternative the Refuge would provide a youth hunting 

program, which may instill an appreciation for hunting and encourage life-long 

hunting. One goal of all of the Refuge hunting programs is to instill positive 

hunting values and hunting ethics.

Adverse Impacts:

Some hunting activities in this alternative have adverse social impacts. Allowing 

the use of pursuit dogs for hunting may be considered inhumane by some. 

Although this was not commonly mentioned during our stakeholder assessment, it 

is known to be a concern for some members of the public (see Decker et al. 1993; 

Loker and Decker 1995; Peyton 1998; Lafon, McMullin, and Steffen 2003). For 

those who oppose hunting on moral or ethical grounds, any hunting is likely to be 

viewed as an adverse impact.

Other adverse impacts of hunting are related to special activities or access 

granted to hunters. For example, permitting hunters off-trail and permitting 

hunting dogs off-leash may be seen as unfair to non-hunters. Those holding 

a Recreational Access or Economic Development perspective may hold this 

view. Likewise, allowing off-trail access to hunters may be viewed negatively, 

especially by those in the Recreational Access perspective, who seek fewer 

restrictions on access for all Refuge users, not just hunters.

Finally, hunting may lead to conflicts and safety issues between hunters and 

other Refuge users. The extensive literature on outdoor recreation conflicts 

proposes that when recreational users perceive that their ability to pursue their 

activities is diminished by the activities of others, that goal interference is likely 

to cause conflict (see Jacob and Schreyer 1980; Vaske, Donnelly, Wittmann and 

Impacts on Hunting from 

Alternative A

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

Open House

Marquette Crockett /USFWS

Effects on the Social Environment
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-29

Laidlaw 1995; Carothers, Vaske and Donnelly 2001). The literature suggests that 

when different types of users depend on a location for recreational benefits there 

may be real or perceived conflict and this may be a negative social impact. 

Safety issues may be minimized because non-hunters may avoid certain areas 

during hunting season. Those who use areas where hunting is permitted are 

encouraged to wear hunter orange, and hunters are encouraged to follow safe 

hunting practices.

Beneficial Impacts:

This alternative would provide all of the benefits of Alternative A as well as some 

additional benefits. This alternative includes several actions that could increase 

deer harvest, such as modifying the “no rifle zones.” The areas in which these 

zones are proposed are in the southern end of the valley and this may help reduce 

high deer densities in that part of the refuge. Alternative B also proposes to 

assist hunters with extraction of deer from remote places (such as shuttle system 

for deer). Both these proposals would contribute to decreasing the damage done 

by deer to refuge resources. These proposals would also increase the available 

areas on the refuge that are open for hunting, would provide more hunting 

opportunities, could increase hunter satisfaction and could encourage hunters 

who might not otherwise participate. Working with our state partners and other 

surrounding landowners to help reduce the deer herd could provide additional 

opportunities for hunting, and may be effective in reducing deer populations. 

Together, these proposals could improve the level of ecological integrity of 

the Refuge (supported by the Ecological Preservation perspective) and could 

increase the number of hunters who visit the area and put dollars into the local 

economy, which would be valued by those who hold the Economic Development 

and Traditional Wildlife Management perspectives. 

Alternative B also promotes scientific research on the Refuge’s deer population, 

which may help the Refuge to better understand and manage deer. Also, 

requiring hunters to obtain a special use permit to hunt rabbit will enable the 

refuge to gain more information about the eastern versus Appalachian cottontail 

population on the refuge. Many of the perspectives in the stakeholder assessment 

noted the importance of basing management decisions on research and scientific 

evidence, so these activities may be seen as beneficial by those holding these 

views. 

Many stakeholders emphasized the importance of developing partnerships, 

and this Alternative focuses on several of these arrangements. In addition to 

the intrinsic value of these partnerships, working with the state DNR on deer 

harvest issues would support the refuges’ objectives of reducing the deer herd on 

the refuge and providing a higher quality white tailed deer hunting experience. 

Working with the state legislature on deer related issues may result in increased 

funding, increased visibility of the refuge to state officials, and a stronger 

relationship with the state DNR.

Access issues are important to hunters, and this alternative addresses these 

concerns by allowing limited vehicular access to North Beall Road. The benefits 

of increasing access could be better deer management and greater hunter 

satisfaction. 

Using outreach and education to inform the public about the impacts of 

overabundance of deer, and the benefits of hunting as a deer management tool 

could improve understanding of the interdependencies of the ecological system. 

The benefits of this improved understanding could include greater acceptance of 

Impacts on Hunting from 

Alternative B

Effects on the Social Environment
4-30 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

management decisions and the individual benefit of increased knowledge of the 

natural world.

Adverse Impacts:

Alternative B would result in all the adverse impacts that occur under 

Alternative A plus some additional adverse impacts. Many of these additional 

adverse impacts are related to Refuge access, which was an important issue to 

many of the stakeholders. 

Increasing the number of rifle hunting areas may result in additional user 

conflicts between hunters and non-hunters, an issue that may affect the 

Recreational Access perspective. Both the Recreational Access and Economic 

Development perspectives may be opposed to increasing access for hunters. 

The Recreational Access perspective may object on the basis of unfairness of 

unequal access, while the Economic Development perspective may believe that 

encouraging access for only “die hard” recreational users and hunters limits 

visitation and curtails economic development opportunities. Other enhancements 

that favor hunters may cause adverse impacts. For example, assisting hunters 

with game retrieval would provide special access for a specific group (hunters) 

and may cause damage to Refuge resources. Those holding an Ecological 

Preservation perspective may be especially aware of this. In more general 

terms, providing shuttles, improving roads, and investing in other improvements 

for hunting access would use budget dollars that could support other Refuge 

activities and users.

Requiring hunters to obtain a special use permit to hunt rabbit may result 

in some inconvenience for hunters, but it is necessary for gathering more 

information about the rabbit population in the valley.

Beneficial impacts:

Alternative C offers all of the benefits of Alternative B.

Adverse impacts:

Alternative C would result in the same adverse impacts as Alternative B. 

Beneficial impacts: 

In addition to the benefits described in Alternative B, this alternative may 

decrease user conflicts by eliminating some species from the hunt list. Fewer 

species to hunt may result in fewer hunters, therefore resulting in fewer conflicts 

between hunters and non-hunters. This would be appreciated by the Recreational 

Access perspective. Most of the species proposed to be removed from the hunt list 

are rarely found on the refuge. Therefore, users aligned with the Recreational 

Access perspective could also reap the benefits of viewing and photographing 

wildlife that only occasionally appears on the refuge since these species would 

be off-limits to hunters. Users aligned with the Ecological Perspective may 

appreciate the removal of some species from the hunt list because it protects 

these rare visitors to the refuge. 

Adverse impacts:

In addition to the adverse impacts noted in Alternative B, this alternative may 

have adverse impacts on hunters because of the removal of some species from the 

hunt list. Although these species are only rarely seen on the refuge, removing 

them from the hunt list could result in a lower quality hunting experience by 

users from the Traditional Wildlife Management Perspective.

Impacts on Hunting from 

Alternative C

Impacts on Hunting from 

Alternative D

Effects on the Social Environment
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-31

Beneficial impacts:

Alternative A provides the benefit of a priority public wildlife-dependent 

recreational use of the Refuge. The Refuge participates in fishing derbies 

and other community events, and these provide the benefit of connecting the 

community—and children, in particular—to the outdoors. This may lead to an 

increased appreciation of the refuge and its resources, and of the natural world in 

general. The Refuge also provides an accessible fishing area, which confers the 

benefit of access to those with limited mobility.

Adverse impacts:

In terms of adverse impacts, under this alternative fishing access is limited to 

places where roads or trails cross a waterway. This limitation may be viewed 

negatively by those with a Recreational Access or Economic Development 

perspective. 

Beneficial impacts: 

This alternative provides all of the benefits of Alternative A, and provides 

additional benefits. Under this alternative, the Refuge would officially open 

and actively promote fishing and provide access, more signage, and education 

programs. The benefits of this increased attention to 

fishing include enhanced opportunities for people of all 

abilities to participate in fishing, and more flexibility 

for Refuge to provide a wildlife-dependent activity 

to the public. This may lead to greater participation 

and a higher degree of public appreciation of Refuge 

resources.

Adverse impacts:

All of the adverse impacts that occur under Alternative 

A would also occur under Alternative B. An additional 

adverse impact under Alternative B may be that 

enhancing and promoting the refuge’s fishing program 

could require expenditures that could be used to 

provide other public benefits. Also, increased numbers 

of anglers may lead to conflicts between Refuge user 

groups. 

Same as alternative B

Beneficial impacts:

This alternative provides all of the benefits of Alternative B, and provides 

additional benefits. The opportunity to fish native-only streams may appeal to 

some anglers and may provide high-quality fishing experiences. This may be 

especially important to the Wildlife First/Recreation Second perspective, the 

Ecological Preservation perspective and, to some degree, the Traditional Wildlife 

Management perspective.

Adverse Impacts:

All of the adverse impacts discussed under Alternative B could also occur under 

Alternative D. Additional adverse impacts could result from stocking only native 

fish. If native fish species are the focus of management activities, fishing may be 

limited and some anglers may choose to fish elsewhere. Also, active management 

of native fish species may be costly to the Refuge and may limit funding for other 

public use programs and activities. Finally, stocking only native fish could pose a 

burden on the State, which is usually the entity that stocks streams and rivers.

Impacts on Fishing from 

Alternative A

Impacts on Fishing from 

Alternative B

Impacts on Fishing from 

Alternative C

Impacts on Fishing from 

Alternative D

Headwaters of North Branch

Ken Sturm/USFWS

Effects on the Social Environment
4-32 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Beneficial Impacts:

The refuge will continue to have 31 miles of roads and trails open throughout 

the year for visitors. This access provides opportunities for wildlife viewing and 

photography, which are important Refuge uses. Leashed dogs will be permitted 

on the refuge which may encourage public use of the refuge for users beyond 

hunters, birdwatchers, etc, and may lead to more people (including young 

families and seniors with pets) gaining an appreciation for the refuge’s resources. 

Completion of a boardwalk loop at the Freeland Tract is planned and will expand 

access opportunities for the public, especially for the elderly and the disabled, 

while protecting fragile resources. 

Of the 31 miles of roads and trails open throughout the year for visitors, crosscountry skiers and those on snowshoes will also have access to an additional 10 

miles of commercially operated trails on the refuge, in cooperation with White 

Grass Ski Touring Center. This will continue to provide economic benefits to 

the community from nonlocal visitors, and promote appreciation for wildlife and 

support for refuge programs. Off-trail skiing will still not be permitted on refuge 

land to ensure that habitat is protected, especially at critical times. This may be 

important to the Ecological Preservation perspective and ensures the mission 

and establishing purpose of the refuge can be upheld.

The refuge will continue to implement refuge-volunteer-based programs 

to maintain and improve trail conditions, signs, and blazing. These valued 

partnerships will continue to support public use on the refuge.

Canoe and boat access will stay the same, with the refuge maintaining three boat 

launches. This provides opportunities for wildlife viewing and photography along 

the Blackwater River.

Adverse Impacts:

The unmaintained Delta 13/Camp 70 Road will continue to be claimed and 

unmaintained by WVDOT. Because Camp 70 road is used as a main trail access 

to the refuge, the inability to address the need to improve this road will create a 

negative impression of the refuge to public users about refuge maintenance.

Choosing to not increase public use and access will have adverse social impacts. 

From the USGS research, some issues of highest consensus and concern included: 

“providing continuous looped trails; a connected trail system that would provide 

recreational and economic opportunities; and restoring railroad grades to view 

habitat while avoiding damage to bogs.” Of lower concern but still of importance, 

stakeholders expressed “the desire for better access for people of all physical 

abilities” and “supporting low-impact mountain biking.” The stakeholders 

interviewed by USGS staff supported providing this access while “protecting 

diverse wetlands and water quality.”

Continuing current public use and access policies with no increase in access 

opportunities may lead to deterioration of the community’s attitude towards and 

support for the refuge and its mission. 

Beneficial Impacts:

Alternative B provides additional benefits above and beyond those discussed in 

Alternative A. Providing opportunities for wildlife observation and photography 

is recognized as a priority use and is seen as integral to the management of the 

refuge. In this alternative significant changes to the present level of public use 

and access are proposed. 

The new trails proposed in Alternative B add about 4.8 miles of new trails, with 

many creating looped trails. Results from the USGS research showed that there 

Impacts on Wildlife 

Observation and 

Photography from 

Alternative A

Impacts on Wildlife 

Observation and 

Photography from 

Alternative B

Effects on the Social Environment
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-33

was agreement across perspectives that continuous, looped trails were highly 

desirable. Stakeholder interviews also revealed support for easy trails that 

would provide increased access, especially for young families, the elderly and the 

disabled. 

Many of these new trails reflect suggestions by stakeholders during interviews. 

After analysis and review, five specific trail suggestions were incorporated 

directly into this alternative by the refuge planning team. The trail suggestions 

made by stakeholders that were accepted as viable solutions to access issues are 

designated by bold text in table below. These efforts by the refuge planning team 

to include stakeholder suggestions may be seen as a positive community building 

effort. 

These new trail combinations may encourage visitors who might not otherwise 

enter the refuge due to limited looping trails. It may also encourage local visitors 

to once again explore the refuge. During USGS research efforts, one stakeholder 

said “More access will provide unique experiences, giving the public the ability 

to enjoy more interesting and unusual places on the refuge so appreciation of 

resource can occur.” Additional trail connections with adjacent landowners will be 

considered as partnerships are established. This will lead to greater connectivity 

and use of more stakeholder suggestions.

Any increase in access will be especially supported by the Recreation Access 

perspective, where many users valued both the physical and mental health 

benefits from being active out-of-doors. They may see new trails and more 

open access as directly improving the quality of their active life style. The 

Traditional Wildlife Management, Ecological Preservation, and Wildlife First 

Recreation Second perspectives may support increased access if they believe 

that the protection of wildlife, water quality, and wetlands are the driving force 

for access decisions. The Economic Development Perspective may support this 

alternative because the more robust access could increase visitor satisfaction, 

encouraging non-locals to visit repeatedly due to the quality of recreational 

opportunities. Increased visits would benefit some local small businesses tied to 

tourism. Cyclists and horseback riders will especially benefit from the increase 

in trail connectivity because it will provide longer trails and thus a higher quality 

experience. 

Continued efforts by refuge staff to collaborate with others (Canaan Valley 

Institute, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, USDA Monongahela 

National Forest and Dolly Sods Wilderness Area, Tucker County Trails, 

Highland Trails Initiative, USFWS, private land owners, etc) on trail 

connectivity is likely to be supported across perspectives. It was agreed across 

all perspectives that “A connected trail system would provide recreational and 

economic opportunities.” Continued efforts by refuge staff to collaborate with 

new partners will be seen as positive by most, and will improve relationships 

between the Refuge, community groups, and other collaborative partners. These 

efforts will also be a positive force in capacity building for those participating in 

future collaborations. 

Alternative B provides improvements for high quality wildlife viewing on the 

refuge. Where A-frame Road enters the Refuge an observation platform will 

be constructed high enough to give a good view of the valley. Additionally, an 

observation blind at the end of A-frame Road between the two beaver ponds is 

planned. The proposed action of closing Freeland Tract to hunting, fishing, and 

dog-walking, except for special deer hunts, could also provide a higher quality 

wildlife viewing and study area because there could be fewer user conflicts and 

more wildlife to view given the decrease in disturbance from dogs and hunters. 

Effects on the Social Environment
4-34 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Increased opportunities for quality wildlife viewing may increase visitation and 

improve visitor satisfaction. The ease of access to some platforms and blinds 

may encourage wildlife viewing by a variety of users, including photographers, 

birdwatchers, and young families, elderly, and the disabled. This may lead to an 

increase in return visits, which may positively impact the local economy. 

Alternative B would improve signage for cross country skiers on the refuge in 

collaboration with White Grass Ski Touring Center to discourage off trail skiing. 

Providing better signs indicating the location of trails, and providing interpretive 

information on the Cheat Mountain salamander habitat protection efforts, would 

enhance cross country skiing and snowshoeing experiences. Narrowing some 

trails to protect habitat may be seen as beneficial to those with an Ecological 

Preservation perspective. On the other hand, those from the Recreation Access 

perspective may not benefit from narrower trails, as they may eventually prohibit 

trail grooming. 

If the state abandons the Delta 13 Road, alternative B’s proposal would 

significantly improve the quality of non-vehicle access. The refuge would 

rehabilitate the road into a quality multi-use trail for pedestrians, bikers, and 

horseback riding. This would increase quality wildlife viewing for roadside 

vernal pools, which are home to amphibians. This would provide a higher quality 

visitors’ experience for all users entering the refuge on the Delta 13 multiuse 

trail. 

Alternative B proposes to improve two new boat launch sites. It also proposes 

to install a kiosk and directional signs to better indicate boat launch sites 

at Timberline Road, Old Timberline Road and Camp 70 Road. Both these 

actions could increase boater satisfaction, therefore leading to an increase 

in repeat visits, and increased revenue to local businesses linked to tourism. 

Communicating about sensitive areas along boating routes with local tourism 

businesses that cater to boaters may increase visitor understanding of Refuge 

resources and increase visitor appreciation for the habitat being protected.

This alternative permits overnight parking on FR 80 for access to Dolly Sods 

wilderness. This could increase visitor satisfaction, due to ease of access to 

Dolly Sods. This may increase repeat visits and possibly increase local business 

revenues. 

Adverse Impacts:

Increasing trails may have adverse social impacts. Any increase in access may 

be scrutinized by the Ecological Preservation perspective to ensure that the 

refuge is upholding their mandate to protect the diverse wetlands. If there is 

a perception that access is being permitted at the expense of the resource this 

perspective may not be supportive. This perspective values wildlife and nature 

for the benefit to a larger ecosystem, and it has a moral concern for wildlife and 

nature. 

On the other hand, the Recreational Access perspective may see this alternative 

as still falling short of providing adequate access and use, despite the fact that 

this alternative provides increased access and use compared with Alternative 

A. Although the refuge will work with partners to discuss additional trail 

connections on and off refuge, users of the Recreational Access perspective may 

want to see trail connectivity progress beyond the point of discussion. The refuge 

may have been limited in progressing further because of the time it takes to form 

these partnerships and engage in these discussions. Still, this alternative will not 

address connectivity to the breadth and depth discussed by many avid outdoors 

people who seek trail connectivity on a grander landscape scale. For example, 

Effects on the Social Environment
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-35

longer day or multiday hikers/backpackers who want to avoid roads altogether 

for a high quality recreational experience, or mountain bikers seeking longer, 

challenging day or multiday adventures want Canaan Valley refuge to be a small 

but integral part of a state/regional trail connectivity plan. 

The Recreational Access perspective may also see this alternative falling short in 

regards to a bike corridor through refuge. A biking corridor was recognized as 

highly controversial with no agreement across perspectives on how to balance the 

extent of access with wildlife conservation. 

Although the refuge currently uses some rail grades for 

access and is proposing to use additional railroad grades 

in this alternative, some stakeholders may be disappointed 

by the lack of additional rail grade restoration to facilitate 

public use. “Restoring railroad grades to view habitat while 

avoiding damage to bogs” was a highly important issue for 

several of the perspectives (Recreational Access, Economic 

Development, and Traditional Wildlife Management). In 

the interviews, following the Q sort by USGS researchers, 

restoring railroad grades was a prominent access solution 

suggested. The logic used reached across historical, 

utilitarian, economical, educational, and resource 

protection values. A discussion in Chapter 3, under 

“Actions Considered but eliminated from further Study” 

explains the reasoning behind rejecting the use of the south 

rail grade for recreation. 

Finally, creating and opening additional trails for wildlife observation and 

photography may result in more user conflicts if this results in higher levels 

of visitation. If user conflicts do become an issue at Canaan Valley refuge over 

time, research on the nature of recreational conflict between mountain bikers 

and hikers (Dyck and Rule, 1978; Watson, Williams, and Daigle 1991; Ramthun 

1995 ) suggests interpretive efforts can help. Efforts that explain behaviors, 

motivations and land use needs of other user groups may reduce perceptions 

of conflict. Some suggest educating hikers (and other user groups) about the 

rationale for cyclists’ distinctive clothing and about riding techniques that 

cyclists must use to ensure their safety. Local cycling organizations may develop 

educational materials or presentation on trail etiquette as well as encouraging 

local trail maintenance. Signs that orient all to the fact that a trail is shared by 

hikers, bikers, horses and other user groups may also be an important part of 

avoiding user conflict. 

The costs of building and maintaining platforms and blinds may take funds away 

from other priorities. Closing the Freeland Tract may disappoint some hunters, 

fishermen and dog walkers, though it would benefit youth and physically disabled 

hunters. Also, the Refuge reserves the right to open the tract for a shorter 

season if the deer are having major impacts on the vegetation.

Narrowing some trails for habitat protection may reduce or eliminate grooming 

access by snowmobiles, which would in turn reduce the ease of ski access. This 

result could negatively impact some skiers’ experience on these trails. Narrowing 

trails may also cause some safety concerns for novice cross country skiers. Also, 

some skiers may be unwilling to stay on trails despite new signs. Monitoring and 

enforcement of off trail use may be difficult for refuge staff to accomplish. 

Under this alternative, adverse impacts may include initial costs for rehabilitating 

the road/trail and long term costs for maintaining the trail. This may pull funds 

from other tasks. Those dependent on vehicles for access may not support this 

management action. 

ATV damage at Jack Neal’s Ford

Ken Sturm/USFWS

Effects on the Social Environment
4-36 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Providing two improved boat launch sites may invite more boaters to the refuge. 

This could potentially cause additional user conflicts. Also, it could cause more 

disturbance to wildlife along riparian corridors, therefore diminishing the quality 

of wildlife viewing opportunities for others. 

A potential adverse impact of permitting overnight parking may be the necessity 

to request an overnight parking permit from refuge, which may pose an undue 

burden on some visitors. Also, increased law enforcement personnel may be 

required to check permits. Finally there could be an increase in litter, which 

could also result in more staff time for maintenance. 

Beneficial impacts:

More miles of trails, and connected trails, would provide improved access for 

recreational users. A cross valley trail would be supported by Recreational 

Access and Economic Development perspectives. The stakeholder evaluation 

indicated a desire for cross valley connected trails in the northern part of the 

refuge. The Recreation Access Perspective strongly agreed with the Q statement, 

“Trail connectivity...through the use of a variety of old and or new trails, rails, 

and boardwalks is important.” 

“Restoring railroad grades to view habitat while avoiding damage to bogs” was 

supported by three of the five perspectives (Recreational Access, Economic 

Development, and Traditional Wildlife Management). In the interviews following 

the Q sort by USGS researchers, restoring railroad grades was a prominent 

access solution suggested. In recommending the restoration of railroad grades, 

the logic used reached across historical, utilitarian, economical, educational, and 

resource protection values, showing a potential for collaboration.

Opening all of Brown Mountain Overlook Trail to mountain biking would provide 

mountain biking access, as a shorter loop or as another option for accessing 

a cross valley trail to A Frame Road. Adding loops and connected trails are 

management actions supported by the Recreational Access and Economic 

Development perspectives. These types of opportunities will add variety to 

biking trips and may encourage more visitors to come to CVNWR and to return. 

Economic benefits may be possible for local tourism businesses. 

Maintaining Delta 13/Camp 70 Road for motorized vehicles may allow additional 

visitors to utilize the area. This may include young families, the elderly, and 

disabled. An added parking area would provide easier access and may increase 

visits to this area while also dispersing recreational activities.

Opening off-trail use in an area designated on Sundays during the hunting season 

would increase access to new areas of the refuge. Permits would be limited to 

25 per month. During the USGS research efforts, one stakeholder said, “More 

access will provide unique experiences giving the public the ability to enjoy more 

interesting and unusual places on the refuge so appreciation of resource can 

occur.” Two Q statements that were seen of high consensus and high concern 

included: “I support new ideas for providing reasonable access while protecting 

fragile ecosystems, for example ...a permit system for backcountry use.” And “It 

is unfair that hunters using the refuge have off-trail access, while other users 

must stay on the trails.” 

Requiring permits would help the refuge keep track of the number of off-trail 

users. By monitoring this area for resource damage, refuge staff could collect 

information that will help determine whether or not to modify the permitting 

system. The refuge would also seek funds to hire a graduate student or other 

research organization to conduct various studies that would monitor any impacts 

Impacts on Wildlife 

Observation and 

Photography from 

Alternative C

Effects on the Social Environment
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-37

to wildlife and their habitats in this off-trail zone. This effort is directly linked 

to requests by stakeholders that management decisions be based on science. 

These monitoring efforts would be supported by the Ecological Preservation 

perspective, Wildlife First, Recreation Second perspective and Recreational 

Access perspective.

The refuge would also seek funds to pay for a study to compare nesting 

success rates of forest interior birds inside and outside of the off-trail use area. 

Monitoring for resource damage, and research studies addressing the impacts 

of off-trail use on forest birds, would tie to the requests by stakeholders that 

management decisions be backed by science. These monitoring efforts would be 

supported by the Ecological Preservation perspective, Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second perspective and Recreational Access perspective.

Adverse impacts: 

Same as Alternative B except for that the Cross Valley Trail may be costprohibitive to implement in a way that protects fragile wetland habitat. Creating 

a cross valley trail was seen as an area of high conflict among perspectives. The 

Ecological Preservation perspective highly values wetland preservation, and may 

be negatively impacted by this alternative. 

Opening the refuge to off-trail use on Sundays during the hunting season 

may cause habitat damage and wildlife disturbance. Some hiking non-hunters 

will take advantage of this opportunity. Those in the Ecological Preservation 

perspective may believe that the potential for habitat damage and wildlife 

disturbance are adverse impacts of this alternative. 

Monitoring effects of off-trail use and enforcing permits will be labor and time 

intensive for refuge staff, and will take away staff time and money from other 

projects related to the refuge’s biological program. If an increase in staffing is 

not possible, extra responsibilities for existing refuge staff could require other 

tasks to be minimized or dropped. 

Of all of the alternatives, this alternative most increases access opportunities 

for mountain bikers, which may negatively impact hikers, horseback riders, 

and other user groups (see Jacob and Schreyer 1980; Vaske, Donnelly, Wittman 

and Laidlaw 1995; Carothers, Vaske, and Donnelly 2001) . As stated under 

Alternative B, research (Dyck & Rule 1978; Watson, Williams, and Daigle 1991; 

Ramthun 1995) suggests decreasing user group conflicts may be accomplished 

by increasing interpretive efforts that encourage tolerance. Multi-user trails may 

increase safety issues for all users. Acquiring jurisdiction to Delta 13/Camp 70 

Road would require ongoing funding for maintenance and repairs. 

Monitoring impacts and maintaining additional miles of public use trails would 

require increased staff time and funding to ensure trails are maintained for a 

quality experience. This would divert funds and staff time from other areas of 

refuge management.

Beneficial impacts:

Closing of these three trails would decrease access in comparison to Alternatives 

B and C. The Ecological Preservation perspective would benefit from this 

alternative, especially in regards to closing the Powderline trail to protect 

Cheat Mountain Salamander. This is illustrated by strong disagreement from 

this perspective on the Q statement, “Increasing access is more important than 

ecosystem health.” 

Impacts on Wildlife 

Observation and 

Photography from 

Alternative D

Effects on the Social Environment
4-38 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Adverse Impacts:

Immediately closing Powderline trail would negatively impact White Grass Ski 

Touring Center, which maintains this trail for cross country skiing on the refuge. 

It would also reduce connectivity between the refuge and the State Park. Access 

would be decreased in comparison to Alternatives B and C. This could negatively 

impact the Recreational Access Perspective. 

Beneficial impacts:

This alternative exposes a large number of people to the Refuge because of 

the emphasis on on-site and off-site programs. This could lead to a broader 

understanding of and support for the Refuge mission and Refuge resources. 

Those from more than one of the perspectives could appreciate the effects of 

these programs: the Ecological Preservation perspective might support the 

focus on learning about and protecting resources; the Wildlife First/Recreation 

Second perspective might be interested in the emphasis on appreciating Refuge 

wildlife while engaging in recreational activities, and the Economic Development 

perspective could support efforts to attract visitors to the area.

Recruiting local volunteers provides the benefit of 

keeping the visitor center open more days per week, 

which allows the Refuge to provide programs and 

information on a more frequent basis. Some members 

of the public are likely to see the use of a STEP 

employee being of even greater benefit than the use 

of volunteers. The stakeholder study suggests that 

there is a desire among the public to have the visitor 

center open more and to have it staffed by FWS 

employees (in addition to volunteers).

The ongoing effort to be involved in community 

events has the potential to increase public awareness 

of and support for the Refuge. Stakeholders from 

several perspectives noted the need for increased 

community involvement and better communication by 

refuge staff.

These themes were especially important to the Recreational Access, Wildlife 

First/Recreation Second, and Economic Development perspectives.

Adverse impacts:

This alternative can cause negative impacts. On and off-site programs entail 

additional budget costs and use resources that could be available for other 

refuge programs. Members of the public who believe that the programs do 

not benefit them, or that providing programs is not the most effective use of 

resources, may not be satisfied with this alternative. Those identifying with the 

Ecological Preservation perspective may be likely to have this concern. Likewise, 

constructing a trailer pad may have negative ecological impacts that will concern 

some members of the public.

Opening the visitor center only four days a week is of concern to members of 

the public who believe that the center should be open on weekend days, because 

that is the time of highest potential visitation. USGS social scientists heard this 

concern across several perspectives, but it seemed most important for those in 

the Recreational Access and Economic Development perspectives. Because the 

programs provided in this alternative seem dependent on additional staff, one 

potential negative impact is that attempting to implement the programs will not 

be successful without additional staff. 

Impacts on Environmental 

Education and 

Interpretation from 

Alternative A

Volunteers and staff, electorfishing crayfish run

Leah Ceperley/USFWS

Effects on the Social Environment
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-39

Beneficial impacts:

This alternative may have a number of beneficial impacts over and above the 

beneficial impacts of Alternative A. Providing additional interpretative trails and 

more signs would increase the quality of visitor experiences. This is potentially 

appealing across several perspectives, but perhaps most important to those who 

are interested in viewing wildlife and learning about Refuge resources. Hiring 

additional staff for visitor services may also increase visitor satisfaction because 

of increased outreach to schools and the opportunities for visitors to learn about 

the refuge. A secondary benefit of additional staff is related to the refuge’s 

public image and the ability to appear more adequately staffed and less reliant 

on volunteers to provide what some believe to be the refuge’s core function. 

Constructing a pavilion on the Beall Trail for environmental education would 

allow refuge staff to take school groups into the field for extended periods of time 

therefore expanding the opportunities for learning. Finally, designing a larger 

meeting room in the visitor center will provide a space for community meetings, 

refuge activities, and other events and may help the refuge communicate with 

and connect with community members. 

Adverse impacts:

This alternative may result some adverse impacts. One is that designing and 

maintaining additional interpretative trails and an environmental education 

pavilion would entail additional expenses and mean that those resources cannot 

be used for other purposes. Likewise, hiring additional staff for visitor services is 

an expense that may be supported by some, but not by all. Constructing a trailer 

pad, and designing a larger meeting room have the same negative impacts-both 

will use resources that will not be available for use elsewhere at the refuge.

Another potential negative impact of this alternative is that increased 

interpretative trails, additional programs, and more building construction 

may damage resources or fragment habitats. Some visitors may also feel that 

increased signage results in sign pollution and detracts from the naturalness of 

the refuge. Those from the Ecological Preservation perspective and from the 

Wildlife First/Recreation perspective may be concerned about those potential 

impacts.

Beneficial impacts: 

This alternative provides all of the benefits of Alternative B, and additional 

benefits. Opening the visitor center 7 days a week year round would provide 

maximum opportunities for visitation and may increase satisfaction with Refuge 

services. Constructing an environmental education pavilion on the Freeland 

Tract instead of on the Beall Trail would provide a different, more popular 

location for environmental education programs on the refuge. 

Adverse impacts:

These are the same as those in Alternative B, with an additional adverse impact 

related to cost of funding a 7 day a week visitor center. 

Same as Alternative B, except the closing of portions of commercial crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing trails at White Grass may mean that the 

refuge would not be able to offer the same level of environmental education and 

interpretation programming during the winter at the White Grass location. 

With up to 5,000 visitors using these trails annually, the Service could lose some 

opportunities to educate a fairly large group of people.

Impacts on Environmental 

Education and 

Interpretation from 

Alternative B

Impacts on Environmental 

Education and 

Interpretation from 

Alternative C

Impacts on Environmental 

Education and 

Interpretation from 

Alternative D

Effects on the Social Environment
4-40 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Beneficial impacts:

The beneficial impacts of this Alternative related to outreach and partnerships 

are that using a variety of venues and forums to communicate with the public help 

Refuge staff develop relationships with a variety of individuals and groups. In the 

USGS evaluation, four out of the five perspectives suggested more frequent and 

open communication with Refuge staff and this may be viewed as a benefit by 

those stakeholders.

Adverse impacts:

The activities in this alternative will take time and effort that could be used for 

active Refuge management. The perspectives that advocate for more attention to 

refuge resources, particularly the Ecological Preservation perspective and the 

Traditional Wildlife Management perspective may believe that using resources 

for these outreach activities should not be a priority.

For those who support increased outreach, the suggested activities and methods 

may appear too direct and structured, with inadequate attention paid to how to 

integrate the Refuge staff into the community on an ongoing and informal basis.

Beneficial impacts:

In addition to Alternative A:

Holding an annual open house may improve relationships with the community and 

provide an opportunity for the refuge to interact with community members in an 

informal setting. This may provide mutual learning experiences. 

Adverse impacts:

Same as Alternative A

Same as alternative B

Same as alternative B

Beneficial impacts:

Current staffing levels allow the refuge to stay within budget and do not require 

budget increases. The current staffing situation encourages local residents to 

volunteer at the refuge, thus becoming involved in the refuge.

Adverse impacts:

Current staff numbers are inadequate to perform all needed refuge functions. 

Low staff numbers means an over-reliance on a limited pool of volunteers. Some 

who participated in the USGS Q-sort exercise mentioned this over-reliance as a 

problem.

In addition to Alternative A:

Beneficial impacts:

Making temporary positions permanent would provide more certainty to refuge 

managers and to staff. Increasing staff would increase the refuge’s capacity to 

perform its functions. Increasing staff would contribute to local employment and 

local economic development. 

Impacts on Outreach 

and Partnerships from 

Alternative A

Impacts on Outreach 

and Partnerships from 

Alternative B

Impacts on Outreach 

and Partnerships from 

Alternative C

Impacts on Outreach 

and Partnerships from 

Alternative D

Impacts from Staffing in 

Alternative A

Impacts from Staffing in 

Alternative B

Effects on the Social Environment
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-41

Adverse impacts:

Funding additional positions would require a larger refuge budget, and may use 

funds that could be used to support other refuge activities. Making positions 

permanent could reduce flexibility, should the refuge determine that other staff 

configurations better meet refuge needs. 

Same as alternative B

Same as alternative B

The RNA is not included in this alternative. 

Beneficial impacts:

In this alternative, 754 acres of the refuge’s central wetland complex will be 

designated as the Blackwater Research Natural Area (BRNA). This designation 

will be considered beneficial primarily by those who support the Ecological 

Preservation perspective. Those in this perspective highly valued statements 

such as “The Refuge plays an important role in conserving, restoring, and 

protecting wetlands,” and “Wetland protection should be the driving force in 

determining access.” The Ecological Preservation perspective did not agree with 

the statement “Increasing access is more important than ecosystem health.” The 

focus on ongoing research in the BRNA may be considered a beneficial impact to 

those who place value on scientific investigation, and those who promote the use 

of science to inform management decisions. 

Those holding the Wildlife First/Recreation Second perspective may also 

consider the BRNA designation beneficial, as evidenced by high agreement on 

these statements: “Watershed and habitat protection are primary concerns,” 

“Land acquisition to support management goals is important,” and “Reasonable 

access is acceptable, as long as resources are protected.” Other perspectives, 

particularly the Economic Development perspective, recognize the importance 

of wetland protection and value the role the refuge plays in that protection, but 

may be less supportive of the RNA designation because of the high value those 

perspectives place on access for a variety of purposes.

Adverse impacts:

The BRNA designation will curtail some hunting access, and this will be 

considered an adverse impact by those who desire access for wildlife dependent 

recreation. Deer hunting will continue to be permitted in the BRNA, but hunting 

of other species will be eliminated. This may be considered an adverse impact 

by those who hunt species other than deer. Those in the Economic Development 

perspective, while agreeing that the refuge plays an important role in wetland 

protection, also agree that access should be increased, so the access restrictions 

of the proposed BRNA may be viewed as a negative impact.

Beneficial impacts:

In this alternative, the BRNA would be reduced in size to 593 acres. The 

beneficial impacts are likely to be the same as those in Alternative B, but the 

magnitude of the benefits may be reduced if ecologically important areas are not 

included in this smaller Research Natural Area. 

Impacts from Staffing in 

Alternative C

Impacts from Staffing in 

Alternative D

Impacts from the RNA in 

Alternative A

Impacts from the RNA in 

Alternative B

Impacts from the RNA in 

Alternative C

Effects on the Social Environment
4-42 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Adverse impacts:

The reduced size of the BRNA in Alternative C is intended to reduce the negative 

impact of limiting hunting on the refuge. Thus, this adverse impact is likely to 

be diminished in magnitude. Adverse impacts on recreational hunter access 

may likewise be reduced, but even with the smaller acreage hunting for species 

other than deer in this area will be eliminated and that is likely to be viewed as 

a negative impact by those supporting the Traditional Wildlife Management and 

Economic Perspective. 

Same as alternative B, but the RNA will be larger, so there will be more of the 

beneficial and adverse impacts as described in alternative B. 

The forested, scrub-shrub, and grassland habitats of the refuge provide diverse 

habitat components to support breeding birds and other wildlife. We evaluated 

the benefits and adverse impacts of the management actions under the four 

alternatives on forested and upland habitats. We considered the benefits from:

■ acquiring and conserving forested and upland areas within the refuge’s 

acquisition boundary.

■ allowing natural succession in existing forested areas.

■ maintaining and increasing early-successional habitats.

■ allowing natural succession on existing grassland areas.

■ continuing partnerships to maintain early-successional habitat and restore red 

spruce and balsam fir habitat.

■ white-tailed deer hunting program.

We considered the potential for adverse impacts from:

■ mowing, cooperative haying, burning prescribed fires, potential grazing, and 

applying herbicides to maintain grasslands.

■ allowing natural succession to deplete or eliminate grassland or scrub-shrub 

habitats.

■ maintaining trails and increasing trail miles for public use in areas where 

threatened and endangered wildlife species are known to occur.

■ forest management activities that include tree cutting and use of logging roads 

and skid trails.

■ increased recreational use of uplands that could lead to habitat impacts or 

wildlife disturbance.

■ allowing dispersed use on 2,330 acres where rare plant communities and 

species are known to occur and threatened and endangered species may occur.

Regardless of the alternative selected, we use standard and effective habitat 

management techniques to conduct forest, shrubland, and grassland management 

activities in the refuge uplands. These best management practices (BMPs) would 

protect sensitive habitat components such as vernal pools and focal species 

nesting sites. Whenever practicable, we will replace non-native plant species with 

native species to restore the ecological integrity of the refuge.

Impacts from the RNA in 

Alternative D

Effects on Upland 

Habitats

Impacts That Would Not 

Vary by Alternative

Effects on Upland Habitats
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-43

The refuge will use certain tools to help maintain, enhance or create wildlife 

habitat:

■ replanting with native species.

■ prescribed fires.

■ haying/mowing.

■ applying herbicides.

■ hydroaxing and use of heavy equipment for tree removal or construction 

activities.

Rare Plant Communities—Regardless of alternative, we would take measures 

necessary to protect and enhance rare upland plant communities on the refuge.

Invasive Plants—Invasive plants if allowed to establish and spread 

can cause damage to native plant assemblages and the wildlife they 

support. We would take steps to ensure that invasive species do not 

become established to degrade upland habitats by monitoring for 

invasive species and treating them where they occur. Key among 

these invasive species on uplands, although sporadic in distribution, 

is multiflora rose, Japanese stiltgrass, garlic mustard, and Japanese 

barberry. We would take proper care in cleaning and maintaining all 

refuge equipment to avoid introduction or transport of invasive plants, 

implement visitor outreach and education programs, and actively 

support state initiatives and continue to work with the state to prevent 

introduction of invasive species to all habitats on the refuge.

Impacts from hunting—In all alternatives, we will offer a hunt program that 

includes the harvesting of white-tailed deer. As we attempt to strengthen the 

integrity of the forests, shrubland, and wetlands on the refuge, controlling 

the white-tailed deer population is imperative. When white-tailed deer are 

overpopulated, they over-browse their habitat, which changes habitat structure 

and plant composition. Flaherty (2006) found that Jacob’s ladder, a state species 

of concern and listed as globally rare, in addition to other rare plant species, is 

experiencing heavy browse damage on refuge land. Over-browsing can stunt the 

growth of young tree seedlings (1–9 years old) and lead to local extirpation of 

the tree species. Failure to control the white-tailed deer population would have 

negative impacts on forested habitats and, therefore, on future resident and 

non-resident wildlife populations as well as the purpose of the refuge. For more 

information on beneficial and adverse impacts to uplands from white-tailed deer 

management refer to rationale discussions under alternatives A and B in chapter 

3, and the Hunt Program Environmental Assessment.

Impacts from increased visitation—All alternatives predict some increase in 

annual visitor numbers based on improvements to visitor infrastructure and 

increased opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. Alternative 

A predicts the lowest annual increase, since no additional infrastructure is 

proposed, while alternative C predicts the highest increase because it focuses on 

maximizing visitor use on the refuge. 

Impacts on wildlife—Protecting and managing current refuge land and 

acquiring land from willing sellers within the refuge acquisition boundary would 

generally benefit all wildlife species that use forest, shrubland, and grassland 

habitat for a portion of their life cycle.

Red spruce stump

Ken Sturm/USFWS

Effects on Upland Habitats
4-44 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Direct impacts on wildlife can be expected wherever humans have access to 

an area. In general, human presence disturbs most wildlife, which typically 

results in a temporary displacement without long-term effects on individuals 

or populations. Some species will avoid areas frequented by people, such as 

developed trails and buildings, while other species, like brown-headed cowbirds, 

have been known to use trails and roads as vectors for invasion which adversely 

impacts other wildlife species. When visitors approach too closely to nests, 

they may cause the adult bird to flush exposing the eggs to weather events 

or predators. Overall, direct effects should be minimal from non-consumptive 

visitor activities because current use of refuge lands is dispersed, the trail 

system is established, and large areas of the refuge are not accessible by trail. 

Furthermore, off-trail access is allowed only by special use permit, therefore 

limiting its impacts on wildlife. A more detailed discussion on visitor use and 

impacts to wildlife can be found in “Effects on Public Use and Access.”

Habitat management activities, such as mowing, using prescribed fire, and 

using silvicultural practices would likely result in the inadvertent take of a small 

number of invertebrates, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and breeding, 

wintering, or migrating birds. It may also cause temporary disturbance or 

displacement of other species. However, management activities would cause no 

major mortality or loss in local populations, because actions occur on a rotational 

basis, meaning no major habitat components would change completely in any one 

year. Additionally, management actions for early successional woody habitat and 

grasslands would be conducted after the breeding season for migratory birds, 

thereby avoiding direct impacts to nesting and recruitment.

Continuing red spruce and balsam fir restoration would provide long-term 

benefits, outside the 15-year scope of this plan, to Cheat Mountain salamanders 

and West Virginia northern flying squirrels. Increases in overall acres of high 

elevation northern hardwood/spruce-fir habitat would enhance and expand 

existing habitat for Cheat Mountain salamanders and flying squirrels. This 

upland cover type has been identified as a key overstory component associated 

with populations of Northern flying squirrels (USFWS 1990, Ford et al. 2004).

Impacts to Endangered and Threatened Species—Regardless of alternative, 

there would be impacts to federally threatened Cheat Mountain salamanders and 

federally endangered Indiana bats from management activities on uplands. For 

alternative B, consultation with the Service’s West Virginia Field Office (WVFO) 

concluded that proposed actions were not likely to adversely affect threatened 

or endangered species on the refuge. A detailed discussion on impacts to 

endangered and threatened species can be found in the “Impacts to Endangered 

and Threatened Species” section.

Impacts to forested wetlands and aspen woodlands are discussed in “Effects 

on Freshwater Wetlands.” While strategies relating to this habitat type are 

discussed in Chapter 2 and 3 within the context of uplands, management actions 

are more likely to beneficially and adversely affect wetlands plants, soils, and 

wildlife species.

All Upland Habitats

Benefits

Under alternative A, we would continue to manage and protect the refuge’s 

current 10,482 acres of northern hardwood forest, conifer spruce/mixed forest, 

shrublands and old fields and grasslands. All upland habitat types would benefit 

from the harvest of white-tailed deer; however, alternative A provides the least 

benefits to habitats from white-tailed deer harvest on the refuge.

Impacts of Alternative A 

(Current Management)

Effects on Upland Habitats
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-45

Adverse Impacts

Over the long-term, vegetation and wildlife associated with upland habitat would 

be affected by increased visitor usage and trail use. For a detailed discussion on 

impacts to wildlife and vegetation see “Impacts to Public Use and Access from 

alternative A.”

Northern Hardwood Forest and Conifer Spruce/Mixed Forest

Benefits

Under alternative A, we would continue to protect and manage the refuge’s 

current 6,616 acres of northern hardwood and conifer spruce/mixed forest. 

Because we would not use silvicultural practices to actively manage forests, there 

would be no impacts from tree cutting or construction and use of logging roads 

and skid trails. Benefits from alternative A are the same as those discussed in 

Impacts to Upland Habitats that would not vary by Alternative.

Beneficial impacts to West Virginia northern flying squirrels and Cheat 

Mountain salamanders are the same as discussed in “Impacts to Upland 

Habitats that would not vary by Alternative.”

Adverse Impacts

Adverse impacts from alternative A are the same as those discussed in Impacts 

to Upland Habitats that would not vary by Alternative.

Shrubland and Old Field

Benefits

The Service has approximately 853 acres of shrubland and 2,482 acres of old 

field habitat and currently manages 35 acres in alternative A to benefit wildlife 

species that depend on that habitat type, like migratory songbirds and American 

woodcock. 

Adverse Impacts

Shrubland restoration would directly and negatively impact grassland breeding 

birds. However, some fields provide only marginal grassland habitat and have 

been found to have a rapid succession rate best suited to shrubland habitat. 

In addition, the refuge provides and manages 531 acres of grassland habitat 

in larger habitat blocks providing breeding and stopover opportunities for 

migratory songbirds and waterfowl.

Managed Grasslands

Benefits

Continuing to manage up to 531 acres of grasslands on the refuge will help 

sustain its role in contributing to maintaining grasslands in the region overall 

and to the biodiversity that type represents. Managing grasslands on a rotational 

basis would provide a habitat mosaic benefiting multiple wildlife and plant species 

and provide herbaceous cover for breeding and migrating birds.

Adverse Impacts

We would follow best management practices for prescribed burns, haying and 

mowing, and other practices that could affect grassland soils and cause localized 

habitat damage. The Service will adhere to detailed burn plans to ensure that 

those risks remain low. We take strict precautions in applying herbicides to 

ensure that they affect only the targeted plants. Long-term management to 

promote the habitat would offset any localized, short-term, adverse effects.

Effects on Upland Habitats
4-46 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

All Upland Habitats

Benefits

We propose to greatly expand conservation of upland habitats at the refuge and 

to institute a wide range of significant upgrades in our management of upland 

focal species under alternative B. We would continue to conserve and manage 

the refuge’s current 10,482 acres of upland forests, shrublands, old fields, and 

managed grasslands under alternative B. Beneficial impacts to upland habitats 

would increase in alternative B in comparison to alternative A, through increased 

management and restoration and increasing white-tailed deer harvest on the 

refuge and potentially on adjacent lands. Under alternative B, the refuge would 

increase hunting in remote areas by implementing a limited shuttle service 

to assist with white-tailed deer extraction, encourage cooperative hunts with 

adjacent landowners, and modify “no rifle zones” to allow more rifle hunting. 

Using these measures the refuge anticipates increased harvest of white-tailed 

deer would have long-term beneficial impacts to upland plant communities. There 

would be adverse impacts, like trampling of vegetation during hunting activities, 

associated with hunting but the benefits to refuge habitats far outweigh any 

adverse effects.

Adverse Impacts

Adverse impacts to uplands would increase in alternative B in comparison 

to alternative A, with an increase in the number of trails, trail miles, visitor 

infrastructure, and increased estimated visitor use. Construction and 

maintenance of trails would occur in uplands resulting in the direct loss of upland 

habitat acres; however, restoration of logging roads, skid trails, and riparian 

areas would offset any net loss of uplands.

Northern Hardwood Forest and Conifer (Spruce) /Mixed Forest

Benefits

Alternative B would implement specific measures to enhance conifer spruce/

mixed forest habitats to benefit blackburnian and black-throated blue warblers, 

fishers, Saw-whet owls, recently de-listed West Virginia northern flying 

squirrels, and federally threatened Cheat Mountain salamanders. Management 

activities that would beneficially impact forest stands and wildlife habitat include 

the use of silvicultural methods to enhance conifer spruce/mixed forest habitats 

and to convert forest islands and edges to early successional habitats. In sprucefir management units thinning, girdling, single tree or group selection cuts of 

up to one-half acre in size with cutting cycles of 15 to 20 years, and reserved 

shelterwood cuts will be used. In forest islands and edges, the refuge proposes 

using group selection cuts, clear cuts, and patch cuts up to 15 acres in size 

annually on a 15-20 year rotation. 

Silvicultural practices would be used to convert forest islands and edges to early 

successional habitats beneficially impacting species like American woodcock and 

Eastern towhee. Early-successional habitats on the refuge have been identified 

as being locally and regionally significant to birds within BCR 28. Increasing 

acreage of this habitat type would contribute to achieving population objectives 

for these species.

Logging road obliteration, recontouring, and revegetation would provide longterm benefits by reconnecting fragmented forest blocks and increasing the 

overall acreage of forest stands. Increasing acreage of contiguous forested 

habitat through acquisition of forested lands and reducing forest fragmentation 

will benefit area-sensitive forest plant and animal species (Robbins et al 1989; 

Betts et al. 2006; WVDNR 2006; Semlitsch et al. 2007).

Impacts of Alternative B 

(Focal Species Emphasis)

Effects on Upland Habitats
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-47

Additional benefits to rare plant communities would be expected in alternative 

B with the enlargement of spruce stands through planting, providing long-term 

benefits, outside the 15 year scope of this plan, to Cheat Mountain salamanders 

and northern flying squirrels by increasing and improving available habitat.

Adverse Impacts

Dependent of the scale of silvicultural improvements there 

is some risk of causing adverse impacts, on, adjacent 

to, and downslope of the site as well as on access roads 

and skid trails. Forest practices using heavy equipment 

could damage the litter layer, coarse woody debris, snags, 

or cavity trees important for wildlife. They may alter 

the moisture regimes in soil and on the forest floor in 

ways that affect plants and animals such as forest floor 

amphibians and small mammals (Carey and Johnson 

1995, Petranka et. al. 1993). Other potential effects 

include soil disturbance, compaction, and erosion on 

site and on access roads and skid trails, elimination or 

displacement of individual animals inhabiting the treated 

site, loss of nesting, roosting, or raptor perching trees, 

and increased risk of colonization by invasive plants and 

animals. The refuge would minimize adverse impacts by 

hand-carrying in chainsaws to forest stands rather than 

using heavy equipment and leaving cut plant material 

in place to increase course woody debris for forest 

amphibians, invertebrates, and small mammals. Best 

forest management practices would be followed to ensure 

that any effects on managed land would be minimized. 

In addition, forest stand improvement methods will be 

described in detail in the Refuge’s Forest Management 

Plan.

There will be short-term adverse impacts to soils, 

hydrology, and adjacent habitats associated with logging 

road obliteration, recontouring, and revegetation efforts. 

Adverse impacts would be minimized through best 

management practices. These short-term impacts would 

lead to substantial long-term benefits by increasing 

available habitat and restoring habitat functionality in areas where logging 

roads have fragmented habitat and are contributing to downslope erosion and 

sedimentation. 

Adverse short-term impacts would be expected from erecting white-tailed deer 

exclosures on the refuge. Because the refuge has not targeted specific sites 

for these exclosures, a range of expected impacts are likely to occur. If the 

exclosures are close to existing roads and trails, impacts to soils, hydrology, 

and plant communities will be minimized. If the exclosures are built away from 

existing infrastructure, impacts to soils, hydrology, and plant communities will be 

greater. In order to erect the exclosures the use of a skidsteer may be required 

to drive auger holes for post placement. The refuge would minimize impacts 

to soils, hydrology, and plant communities from the use of heavy equipment by 

placing rubber mats over sensitive wetlands to minimize impacts from tracked 

vehicles, operating tracked vehicles when wetland soils are firm, and following 

best management practices listed in the Habitat Management Plan.

Spruce and foliage

Ken Sturm/USFWS

Effects on Upland Habitats
4-48 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Shrublands and Old Field

Benefits

Benefits to shrublands would increase in alternative B as this alternative 

proposes to manage 853 acres of shrubland and old field habitat, which is an 

increase of 535 acres from alternative A. Contributing to this increase are 216 

acres of previously managed grasslands that would be managed as shrubland and 

old field habitat. American woodcock and early successional focal species would 

benefit most under alternative B from management efforts to maintain singing 

ground habitat and increase shrubland habitat acres by allowing succession to 

occur on 2,482 acres of old fields including 216 acres of managed grasslands.

The demonstration area would increase awareness and support of management 

activities on the refuge. By providing visitor viewing opportunities and 

interpretation, visitors would be able to view changes in plant communities 

and wildlife response to management actions over time. In turn this would 

increase understanding of the importance of shrubland vegetation and wildlife 

communities not only within Canaan Valley but also regionally.

Manual or portable power tools would be used in vegetation management to 

manipulate or maintain habitat such as alder. Cutting would be conducted 

after the breeding season of most birds and when disturbance to foraging 

wildlife would be minimized. The use of grazing animals is being considered 

in the demonstration areas as a tool for managing vegetation under hawthorn 

communities. Goats have been used to reduce woody vegetation encroachment 

and cattle are effective in herbaceous vegetation management. Prescribed 

grazing can also be effective to reduce invasive species cover if applied correctly. 

Walker et al (1994) note that goats were effective in managing leafy spurge 

in confined area trails. Refuge management of grazers would be similar in 

that areas would be tightly restricted to habitat management blocks. As 

these areas would also be research demonstration sites, the effects would be 

closely monitored and evaluated for success in meeting vegetation management 

objectives.

Adverse Impacts

Adverse impacts from alternative B include impacts from mowing shrub 

communities on a two to four year rotation and experimental cutting of alder 

stands for alder regeneration. Localized adverse effects from mowing include 

soil compaction and rutting where wet soils are encountered, damage and loss of 

vegetation, displacement of foraging wildlife, inadvertent take of small mammals, 

reptiles and amphibians, and young birds. The refuge would minimize these 

potential adverse effects by performing management actions after the bird 

breeding season, when plants are dormant, and when small mammals, reptiles, 

and amphibians are least active. The refuge would follow best management 

practices to minimize soil damage and loss of vegetation.

The refuge will minimize adverse impacts from alder cutting by using manual or 

portable power tools to manipulate alder stands. Other shrubland management 

would be conducted with rotary mower equipment when necessary. Cutting 

would be conducted after the breeding season of most birds and the refuge would 

minimize disturbance to foraging wildlife. In addition, the long time interval 

between cutting rotations for shrub communities (alder stands -20 years) would 

further minimize adverse effects.

Prescribed grazing would require the construction of either temporary or 

permanent fencing to contain animals within the desired upland management 

unit. Fence failure and/or animals escaping from intact fenced areas could 

negatively affect habitat adjacent to prescribed grazing management units. 

Effects on Upland Habitats
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-49

Escaped animals grazing in wetland areas could cause soil erosion, plant 

trampling, and stream sedimentation if they are able to access riparian areas. 

Additionally, disproportionate impacts to plant species and communities could 

occur if grazing occurred un-checked in wetland areas as many species and plant 

communities in wetlands are considered rare in Canaan Valley. 

Grazing impacts in riparian habitats have been found to impact water quality 

(Pinay et al. 1992), reduced vegetative structure important for avian richness 

and diversity (Popotnik and Giuliano 2000, Saab et al. 1995). Small mammal 

populations in heavily grazed areas are found to change from species associated 

with niche habitats to those requiring little vegetative cover and more general 

diets (Johnston and Anthony 2006). To address these potential impacts the 

refuge would ensure that fence construction and maintenance was appropriate 

for containing the animals being used for the prescribed grazing activities. 

Grazing areas would be located in uplands and water sources would be provided 

to eliminate the need for animals to seek riparian habitats. The duration of time 

required to achieve the vegetation objectives within the management unit would 

likely be short, therefore further reducing the likelihood of escaped animals or 

fence failure. 

Managed Grasslands

Benefits

Alternative B proposes to manage 315 acres of grassland habitat, which is a 

41% reduction in managed grassland habitat from alternative A. The refuge 

proposes to reduce interior grassland fragmentation by removing fence lines and 

tree rows. Expected benefits from these actions are a decrease in edge effect, a 

decrease in predation rates on grassland nesting songbirds, and an increase in 

contiguous grassland habitat. In addition, the refuge would work with adjacent 

landowners to improve private grassland habitat through education and outreach 

that would encourage late haying and mowing, development of conservation 

easements, and incentive programs. Delayed haying and mowing on farmlands 

off the refuge might achieve an overall positive effect on grassland bird 

reproduction in Canaan Valley. In addition, increasing overall grassland acreage 

through conservation easements would further the refuge’s efforts in grassland 

conservation.

Adverse Impacts

In this alternative, the refuge would not manage grasslands smaller than 

50 acres, unless needed to support an administrative or priority public use. 

Those fields would revert to shrub habitat over the next 15 years. Their loss to 

succession would be considered adverse to the overall objective of maintaining 

the grassland type, but that impact would be negligible when considered in the 

context of the more focused management of grasslands in larger contiguous 

areas in this alternative. On the other hand, focusing management efforts and 

improving vegetative structure and composition on larger grassland fields 

might be more beneficial to area sensitive grassland dependent species. Many 

studies have found a link between small field size (<50 acres) and an increase in 

predation rates of grassland songbird eggs and fledglings. Actively managing 

small, fragmented grassland habitats may be detrimental to grassland songbird 

reproductive success and not contribute to their population objectives. The refuge 

would manage a variety of grasslands in various successional stages to provide 

cover and foraging opportunities for breeding grassland songbirds and migratory 

land birds.

Effects on Upland Habitats
4-50 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

We would follow best management practices for prescribed burns, haying and 

mowing, and other practices that could affect grassland soils and cause localized 

habitat damage. Long-term management to promote the habitat would offset any 

localized, short-term, adverse effects.

Benefits

Under alternative C, the refuge would continue to conserve the refuge’s current 

11,262 acres of upland forests, shrublands, old fields, and managed grasslands. 

Under alternative C, beneficial impacts from the harvesting of white-tailed deer 

are similar to alternative B. 

Adverse Impacts

Under alternative C, adverse impacts from the harvesting of white-tailed deer 

are similar to alternative B.

Short-term and long-term adverse impacts to uplands are greater in alternative 

C than in the other alternatives. Long-term adverse impacts from increased 

visitor infrastructure and construction projects and increased trail construction 

would create an irreversible loss of upland habitat. There would be no loss of 

upland habitat from the potential Camp 70 road improvement, although increased 

vehicle access and associated human use could create some long term impacts to 

upland habitats adjacent to the road. 

Off-trail use within a zoned area would likely cause adverse impacts to upland 

plant communities and wildlife. Impacts might be minimized as users would 

be spread over a large area; however, it will be difficult for the refuge to 

locate, monitor, and perform remediation measures on impacted plants due to 

unpredictable visitor use and spatial extent of the off-trail use zone. Upland 

soils associated with steep slopes have the potential to be severely impacted by 

dispersed use activities (Bell 2002, Rizzo 2002). 

The refuge will minimize impacts by issuing no more than 25 special use permit 

per month for dispersed use, and by only permitting off-trail use during the 

hunting season. By issuing special use permits the refuge would be able to gather 

information on the number of users, gather information on the days and duration 

of use, and restrict location of use as necessary to minimize resource impacts. 

This information would enable the refuge to monitor known locations of dispersed 

use for damage and perform remediation measures as needed. For additional 

information on the impacts related to the off-trail use zone see “Effects of Public 

Use and Access, Public Use and Access Impacts from Alternative B.”

Northern Hardwood Forest and Conifer Spruce/Mixed Forest

Benefits

Benefits to northern hardwood forests and conifer spruce/mixed forests are 

similar to alternative B, although alternative C will rely on increased harvesting 

of white-tailed deer for forest stand regeneration. There would be no damage 

to forest stands related to silvicultural operations; however, overall benefits to 

forest stands from alternative C are far lessened because forest stands would not 

be managed strategically. In areas where extensive logging has occurred forest 

stands would not benefit from forest stand improvement measures identified in 

alternative B.

Adverse Impacts

Red spruce that persist in the understory would be adversely affected under 

alternative C. Because red spruce is tolerant of shade, it can persist and 

grow slowly in the understory for up to 100 years and respond to release as 

Impacts of Alternative C 

(Maximize Public Use)

Effects on Upland Habitats
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-51

surrounding trees die. However, the longer red spruce is suppressed in the 

understory the longer it will take to recover from a release, which may allow 

other faster-growing species to outgrow it. Many of the stands with a red spruce 

component in the understory are 70 to 90 years old. The red spruce that is in the 

understory most likely has been suppressed during this time. Since a release is 

not planned in most of these passive restoration areas, it is likely that much of the 

red spruce in the understory will die within the next 10 to 30 years. Overall, the 

range of red spruce would continue to expand toward pre-20th century conditions 

but at a much slower rate than in the other alternatives (Monongahela National 

Forest EIS 2008). 

Habitat improvements for Cheat Mountain salamanders and northern flying 

squirrels would not be achieved within the 15 year scope of the CCP under this 

alternative. Benefits to these species would be long-term in alternative C, while 

strategic red spruce and balsam fir restoration in the other alternatives would be 

expected to expand habitat acres within the understory and in forest openings 

within the scope of this CCP.

Shrubland and Old Field

Benefits

Under alternative C, the refuge would manage 

853 acres of shrubland habitat, which is the 

same as alternative B. Alternative C proposes 

to add an additional demonstration area in 

comparison to alternative B. The benefits from 

these demonstration areas are described in the 

Impacts to Upland Habitats for Alternative B, 

Northern Hardwood Forest and Conifer Spruce/

Mixed Forest, Shrubland and Old Field section. 

Alternative C provides an added benefit by 

increasing viewable area and exposing visitors 

to varying early successional habitat restoration 

techniques by having two viewable demonstration 

areas. This increased viewing opportunity has 

the potential to increase levels of disturbance to 

associated wildlife. 

Adverse Impacts

We would follow best management practices for mowing, and other practices that 

could affect soils and cause localized habitat damage. Long-term management to 

promote the habitat would offset any localized, short-term, adverse effects.

Managed Grasslands

Benefits

Under alternative C, the refuge proposes to manage 341 acres of grassland 

habitat. This is more acreage than proposed in alternative B, but 190 acres fewer 

than alternative A proposes to manage. Adverse impacts to grasslands are the 

same as those discussed in alternative B.

Adverse Impacts

We would follow best management practices for prescribed burns, haying and 

mowing, and other practices that could affect grassland soils and cause localized 

habitat damage. Long-term management to promote the habitat would offset any 

localized, short-term, adverse effects.

White-tailed deer

Steve Hildebrand/USFWS

Effects on Upland Habitats
4-52 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

All Upland Habitats

Benefits

The refuge would continue to conserve the refuge’s current 10,482 acres of 

upland forests, shrublands, old fields, and managed grasslands. All habitats 

would be managed passively to eventually achieve late-successional forest 

characteristics. This approach would benefit northern hardwood forests and 

conifer-spruce forests but adversely impact shrubland, grassland, and old field 

habitats. Measures to increase white-tailed deer harvest on the refuge are 

similar to alternative B and C. If white-tailed deer harvest objectives are not 

met, the refuge would work with the state to increase deer hunting seasons and 

implement special antlerless hunts to meet harvest objectives. Of all alternatives, 

measures taken under alternative D would be the most beneficial to refuge plant 

communities by increasing the refuge’s flexibility to control white-tailed deer 

populations to benefit plant communities and their associated wildlife. 

Adverse Impacts

Adverse impacts from alternative D are similar to those discussed in “Impacts 

of Upland Habitats from Alternative B.” However, adverse impacts would not be 

as extensive because alternative D limits vehicle access (same as alternative A) 

and decreases trail miles as a result of trail closures or changes from proposed 

trail connections in alternative B. A reduction in public use activities would 

beneficially impact associated uplands.

Northern Hardwood Forest and Conifer Spruce/Mixed Forest

Benefits

Long-term benefits to forests on the refuge in alternative D would increase 

in comparison to alternative B from an increase in forested acres relating to 

succession of old field and grassland habitats over time. The succession of old 

field and grassland habitats would initially increase habitat for species like 

American woodcock, Eastern towhee, and brown thrasher. However, habitat for 

these species would decrease in the long-term (outside the scope of this plan) and 

benefit forest interior species like scarlet tanagers and eastern wood peewees as 

forested habitat acres increase.

West Virginia northern flying squirrels and Cheat Mountain salamanders 

would have long-term benefits, outside 15 year scope of this plan, from natural 

conversion of upland habitats to late-successional forests. As in alternative C, 

benefits to these species would occur outside the time frame of this CCP.

Adverse Impacts

The silvicultural practices employed under alternative D and their potential 

impacts, best management practices, and implementation of restrictions to 

conserve sensitive environments would be the same as alternative B.

Under alternative D, we would not create early successional habitat 

demonstration areas and would not promote early successional focal species. We 

would manage for natural clearings and early successional components in mixed 

stands that would be part of the mosaic of stand composition sought under this 

alternative. These clearings would benefit woodcock only if singing grounds and 

large openings for night roosting are sufficient in number and proximity to the 

woodcock’s other necessary habitat components to adequately support breeding 

and migration requirements of the species.

Impacts of D (Focus on 

Managing for Historical 

Habitat)

Effects on Upland Habitats
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-53

Shrubland and Old Field

Benefits

In contrast with the other alternatives, which propose to actively manage for 

early successional habitats, alternative D proposes to allow natural succession to 

take place on all shrublands and old field habitats. Early successional species, like 

American woodcock, would receive short-term benefits related from succession 

but ultimately would be displaced as habitats continue to succeed to northern 

hardwood forest.

Adverse Impacts

As described above, there would be long-term adverse impacts to shrubland 

dependent species on the refuge related to eventual displacement and these 

species will only be able to utilize early successional habitat where they naturally 

occur. Early successional habitats would slowly (> 50 years) revert to later 

successional forested types which would all occur well outside of the 15 year 

time frame of this CCP. The displacement of early successional bird species may 

adversely affect local and regional population goals set by the BCR as the refuge 

under alternatives A, B, and C provides habitat that is scarce in the region, state, 

and local area.

As the refuge shrublands and old fields succeed to forested habitat, certain 

populations of rare plant communities and plant species, like Glade Spurge in old 

fields, would possibly be adversely affected by reducing patch size and frequency 

of occurrence. However, the populations of these species are expected to persist 

over time within later successional woodland habitats. The refuge will minimize 

adverse effects to glade spurge populations by developing a management plan to 

ensure populations persist in refuge habitats.

Managed Grasslands

Benefits

Alternative D would provide the least benefits to managed grasslands on the 

refuge. In contrast with the other alternatives which propose to actively manage 

grasslands, alternative D proposes to allow natural succession to take place on all 

managed grasslands. 

Adverse Impacts

Over time these grasslands would revert to shrubland and forested habitat. 

There would be long-term adverse impacts to grassland dependent wildlife 

species. However, these impacts would not be immediate but would be observed 

within the 15 year duration of the plan. Unmanaged grasslands, through changes 

in vegetation type and structure, would become less desirable to grassland 

dependent wildlife species and eventually would displace them entirely. Although 

grasslands may continue as a varying component due to natural disturbance on 

the refuge its part in sustaining grassland habitats in the region would diminish 

accordingly. Grassland breeding songbirds, as an example, would seek suitable 

breeding sites elsewhere. Some grassland birds would likely set up breeding 

territories on active farmlands, particularly active hayfields in Canaan Valley, 

to continue nesting. Haying operations on neighboring lands typically take place 

at the height of the grassland bird breeding season and would lead to the loss 

of nests, nestlings, and fledglings. While species like Henslow sparrows would 

benefit in the short-term from active grasslands reverting to idle, old fields, 

Canaan Valley would likely lose these grassland- and area-dependant species 

within 10 years. While grassland dependent species would be adversely impacted, 

the Service believes the benefits to priority migratory species of concern that 

utilize shrubland plant communities and the succession to more historic, naturally 

occurring habitats far outweigh these impacts.

Effects on Upland Habitats
4-54 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

There are four fields (Freeland, Thompson, Harper, and Beall) that were 

ditched and drained to create pastures and hayfields prior to refuge acquisition. 

Alternative D proposes to plug those ditches and restore wetland characteristics 

to those fields. Native wetland plant species would benefit because they would 

out-compete planted grasses and most non-native plant species that are not 

suited to wetland soil types or inundation.

Wetlands management and conservation is our highest priority for the refuge, 

consistent with the original refuge establishment purpose, and our first and 

foremost CCP goal. We evaluated the management actions proposed for each of 

the refuge CCP alternatives for their potential to benefit or adversely affect open 

water and wetland habitats—including shrub and herbaceous, forested, aspen 

woodland, and open water-and associated focal species.

Benefits

We evaluated the benefits of our actions that would conserve or restore the open 

water and wetlands habitats or conserve and enhance breeding or migrating focal 

species, including:

■ Acquisition and conservation of additional wetlands.

■ Conversion of certain areas to more productive or unique wetlands.

■ Management to prevent the spread of invasive species.

■ Continuation of the refuge’s hunting and beaver management programs to 

protect rare and sensitive plant communities and enhance habitat for the 

refuge’s focal species.

■ Establishing a RNA to preserve examples of major wetland ecosystem types, 

provide research and educational opportunities for scientists and others; and 

contribute to the preservation of genetic and behavioral diversity for native 

plants and animals.

Adverse Impacts

We evaluated the potential for the actions proposed under the Canaan Valley 

refuge management alternatives to cause adverse effects to open water and 

wetlands habitats, including:

■ actions causing soil, hydrology, and water quality impacts that might adversely 

affect open water biota and wetlands maintenance and productivity.

■ actions such as vegetation management like aspen stand cutting, that might 

adversely affect open water biota and wetlands maintenance and productivity.

■ activities of refuge visitors that might directly impact wetlands habitats or 

disturb nesting or migratory species.

■ activities in wetlands that could lead to impacts to rare plant communities and 

species.

■ increased recreational use of wetlands that could lead to habitat impacts or 

wildlife disturbance.

■ allowing off-trail use on 2,330 acres which include wetlands (4% that are 

wetlands) where rare plant communities and species are known to occur and 

threatened and endangered species may occur.

Effects on Freshwater 

Wetland Habitats

Effects on Freshwater Wetland Habitats
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-55

Regardless of which CCP alternative we select, we would continue to conserve 

the refuge wetlands as the highest priority for refuge management. 

We expect that the Blackwater River watershed would remain largely protected 

in the foreseeable future and that only excessively prolonged periods of heavy 

rainfall or prolonged extensive drought, neither of which has been known to occur 

in this region, would alter the hydrologic regime.

Other than very gradual losses of acreage in particular wetland types resulting 

from natural succession, we anticipate that any adverse impacts to the refuge 

wetlands complex would likely be a result of changes in local hydrology or water 

quality originating within the Blackwater River watershed from direct human 

disturbance, the influx of invasive species, effects of climate change, and/or acid 

precipitation. Regardless of which CCP alternative we select, we would develop a 

Habitat Management Plan for wetland habitats, and would mitigate any potential 

for major unplanned changes in vegetation by continuously monitoring our 

vegetation types and updating our Geographic Information System database.

Rare Communities—Regardless of alternative, we would take all measures 

necessary to conserve rare wetland communities on the refuge. 

Invasive Plants—Invasive plants if allowed to establish and spread can cause 

major damage to native plant assemblages and the wildlife they support. We 

would take steps to insure that invasive species do not become established to 

degrade the wetlands. We will monitor for invasive species and treat them where 

they occur. Key among these invasive plant species which currently occur in 

refuge wetlands are reed canary grass, multiflora rose, yellow flag iris, and 

cattails. We would take proper care in cleaning and maintaining all refuge 

equipment to avoid introduction or transport of invasive plants, implement 

visitor outreach and education programs, and actively support state and partner 

initiatives and continue to work with the state to prevent introduction of invasive 

species to all habitats on the refuge.

Impacts from hunting—The impacts are the same as those described for upland 

habitats in the discussion under “Impacts to Upland Habitats that would not vary 

by Alternative.” A more detailed description of beneficial and adverse impacts 

related to the refuge’s white-tailed deer hunt program is located in the refuge’s 

“Amended Environmental Assessment Hunt Program Proposal” (April 2007).

Impacts from furbearer management—Under all alternatives, our furbearer 

management program will only include beaver trapping as a management tool. 

The furbearer management program would not be designed to eliminate beaver, 

but rather, remove individuals in those areas where they are impacting sensitive 

and rare wetland plant communities and plant species of concern or refuge 

infrastructure. The removal of excess beaver from those areas would maintain 

furbearer populations at levels compatible with the habitat and with refuge 

objectives, and minimize beaver damage to plant communities and refuge roads 

and trails. Further, the trapping program is managed on an annual basis through 

issuance of special use permits which limit trapper numbers and locations on the 

refuge.

This program could result in both direct and indirect effects on open water and 

wetlands habitats and species. Indirect impacts could result from the activity of 

placing traps as it could disturb or displace migratory birds utilizing wetlands for 

wintering or foraging habitat during seasonal migrations. Direct impacts would 

include the harvest of targeted species, and the potential to harvest non-targeted 

species. 

Impacts That Would Not 

Vary By Alternative

Effects on Freshwater Wetland Habitats
4-56 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Because of the temporal separation of trapping activities and breeding wildlife 

using the refuge, indirect impacts on those resources by trappers would be 

negligible. Trappers using the refuge in late fall through early March may 

disturb individual early nesting waterfowl on occasion, and cause their temporary 

displacement from specific, limited areas. Those impacts are occasional, 

temporary, and isolated to small geographic areas. 

Harvest of beaver can be both positive and negative. Beaver ponds at Canaan 

Valley Resort State Park appear to prohibit the movement of fish species, 

eliminate some lowland wetland plant communities, and could be partly 

responsible for the low dissolved oxygen levels in the Blackwater River. On 

the other hand, beaver ponds have been found to be beneficial to water quality 

and may help neutralize water with relatively low pH values before releasing 

it further downstream (Snyder et al 2006). Wetlands directly associated with 

beaver ponds have been found to harbor a diversity of rare plant species in 

Canaan Valley (Bonner et al 2009). Beaver are also a keystone species for cycling 

small wetland systems from pond to meadow to scrub-shrub to forest, and back 

to pond.

The accidental harvest of non-target furbearer species, such as river otter and 

mink, is possible, but requirements for trap setting, refuge regulations on size of 

traps and location of trap placement, requirements for a state license, outreach 

and education, and requirements for adherence to best management practices 

for trapping furbearers would help minimize impacts. Risk of taking species 

other than beaver will be reduced significantly as beaver trapping sets will occur 

specifically around areas of beaver activity. Selectivity for beaver can be achieved 

by carefully choosing trap locations, using specific beaver attractants, and 

employing trap types and trigger configurations that are unlikely to be sprung 

by other species. Trapper experience and the selection of the appropriate trap 

size will reduce non-target furbearer captures (Northeast Furbearer Resources 

Technical Committee 1996, Boggess et. al 1990). In particular, river otters are 

protected in the state of West Virginia. Currently the state provides trappers 

with recommendations on how to prevent the accidental take of river otters. This 

information will be made available to refuge trappers to help prevent accidental 

take. The Service will continue work with the state to help prevent the accidental 

take of river otter on the refuge through trapper education.

Fall foliage

Ken Sturm/USFWS

Effects on Freshwater Wetland Habitats
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-57

Under all alternatives, open water and aquatic wetland habitat would be 

adversely affected by anticipated decreases in their associated acres from 

beaver trapping. However, forested wetlands, aspen woodlands, and shrub 

and herbaceous wetlands and their associated plant communities and wildlife 

populations would be beneficially impacted by the refuge’s beaver management 

program.

Impacts from increased visitation—In addition to impacts discussed in “Effects 

on Public Use and Access,” hunting and fishing are two priority, wildlifedependent, consumptive activities with additional direct effects on open water 

wildlife and habitats. Hunting of waterfowl has been ongoing on refuge lands 

for decades, including prior to refuge establishment. The refuge’s hunt program 

follows federal and state regulations for annual harvest levels and seasons by 

species. These regulations are set by the Service for each state based on what 

harvest levels can be sustained for a species without adversely affecting its 

overall Atlantic Coast flyway population. As such, hunting results in individual 

losses, but the projected cumulative harvest would not jeopardize the viability 

of any harvested species’ population. Some disturbance to non-target wildlife 

species may occur; however, those impacts should be minimal because hunting 

pressure is low and occurs outside the breeding season.

The refuge’s fishing program will follow the state of West Virginia regulations, 

including harvest limits for certain species. These limits are set by the state to 

ensure that harvest levels do not cumulatively impact native fish resources to the 

point they are no longer self-sustainable. Other potential impacts of fishing on 

open water and wetlands wildlife and habitats are detailed in the compatibility 

determination for public fishing found in appendix B, “Appropriateness and 

Compatibility Determinations.” A summary follows:

■ Accidental or deliberate introductions of non-native fish by anglers—We 

plan to continue to work with the state in implementing a public education 

and outreach program; increased law enforcement is also planned under all 

alternatives.

■ Accidental introduction of invasive plants, pathogens, or exotic invertebrates 

attached to boats—Similar to non-native fish, we will continue to work with 

the state in implementing a public education and outreach program under all 

alternatives.

■ Negative effects on waterfowl, wading birds, and other wildlife from lost 

fishing gear—namely, the concern with these species ingesting lead sinkers, 

hooks, lures, and litter, or becoming entangled in fishing line or hooks. Similar 

to the threat from non-native fish, we will continue to work with the state in 

implementing a public education and outreach program under all alternatives.

■ Disturbance to wildlife; namely to breeding and brood-rearing waterfowl, 

bald eagles, and wading birds—Similar to other visitors, anglers can approach 

too closely to nests, and may cause the adult birds to flush, exposing the eggs 

to weather events or predators. Under all alternatives we will continue to close 

areas seasonally around active nesting sites to minimize human disturbance.

■ Negative impacts on water quality—These were described in the section titled 

“Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality” above.

Effects on Freshwater Wetland Habitats
4-58 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

■ Negative impacts on sensitive wetlands from boat access sites and associated 

foot traffic—Direct impacts on vegetation can result from portaging boats 

over stream banks and through wetland vegetation. Other ground disturbing 

impacts can occur in wetlands from anglers getting their boats in water, or 

from shoreline fishing. Portions of, or whole plants, can be torn up, sometimes 

by the roots. Riparian soils may be especially susceptible to erosion when 

boaters have to portage around fallen logs in the river channel. Establishing 

and improving designated spots for boat access reduces this impact. Refuge 

boat access sites and trails will be located away from sensitive wetlands, peat 

lands, and rare plants under all alternatives. Boaters will not be permitted out 

of the river channel with the exception of necessary portaging around river 

obstructions. Habitat features important for trout, such as overhanging banks, 

will also be protected from disturbance.

Impacts on wildlife—Potential impacts to wildlife are the same as described in 

“Effects on Upland Habitats – Impacts that would not vary by alternative.”

Impacts to Endangered and Threatened Species—Regardless of alternative, 

there would be beneficial and adverse impacts to federally endangered Indiana 

bats from management activities in riparian and shrubland habitats. A detailed 

discussion on impacts to endangered and threatened species can be found in the 

“Impacts to Endangered and Threatened Species” section.

Service Activities—Wetlands may be at some minimal risk of indirect effects 

from Service activities in upland areas that drain into them from leaks or spill 

accidents involving chemicals or petroleum products in refuge management 

operations. Our leak and spill prevention and emergency clean-up procedures 

should ensure that such occurrences are rare, and are addressed immediately, 

limiting those short-term effects to the immediate location.

All Wetlands

Benefits 

We would continue to conserve the refuge’s current 5,573 acres of wetland 

habitat under alternative A. All habitat types would benefit from the harvest of 

white-tailed deer; however, alternative A provides the least beneficial impacts to 

habitats when compared to the other alternatives.

Adverse Impacts

Of the four refuge management alternatives, we would be most constrained under 

alternative A in terms of how we would improve conservation of wetlands and 

open water habitats and enhance management of focal species. Our management 

efforts would be limited to habitat inventory, mapping, and monitoring of 

impacted wetland areas, birds and other vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants. 

We would continue to implement active habitat management such as beaver 

trapping to protect rare plant communities. Other beaver ponds would persist to 

maintain open water habitats for associated plant and wildlife species. 

Over the long-term, the risk of erosion and water quality problems that might 

affect these habitats would increase with increased visitor usage and trail 

use. Wetland complexes adjacent to active trails, like the Middle Valley trail 

and South Glade Run Crossing trails would be of particular concern as trail 

degradation from hiking, biking, and horseback riding could increase potential 

damage to associated wetlands. However the refuge makes every attempt to 

site trails in the least sensitive areas in order to minimize adverse impacts to 

wetlands and other sensitive community types. 

Impacts of Alternative A 

(Current Management)

Effects on Freshwater Wetland Habitats
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-59

Alternative A (as well as B and C) continue to permit raccoon hunting according 

to state seasons. Most raccoon hunting occurs in wetland areas and adjacent 

to access roads where hunters can deploy dogs. Therefore potential areas for 

wildlife disturbance are typically limited. Additionally the refuge will prohibit 

releasing dogs on Cortland Road and Old Timberline Road, in order to limit the 

potential of dog trespass on private lands. Cumulative impacts from disturbance 

may occur to wildlife if night hunting activities overlap with hunting or fishing 

activities in the same areas during the day. Raccoon season overlaps with most 

other hunting seasons and fishing occurs year round, therefore the potential for 

night time hunting areas corresponding to day use is high. 

Because many raccoon hunters use dogs and hunt at night, raccoon hunting 

requires a special use permit. This allows the refuge to closely monitor hunting 

activity and deny permits to violators. Disturbance to non-target wildlife species 

is possible as a result of night hunting. Given that most mammal species are most 

active at night, and the length of raccoon hunting season, there is the potential 

encountering non-target wildlife during this activity. Due to the average low 

number of hunters participating in the refuge raccoon hunt and the ability of the 

refuge to limit hunting through special use permits; these impacts, if any, will 

be negligible. More information on the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of 

raccoon hunting are located in the 2007 Environmental Assessment for Hunting 

at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 2007).

For additional adverse impacts relating to freshwater wetlands see Effects of 

Hydrology and Water Quality, Impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality from 

Alternative A.

Forested wetlands

Benefits

We would continue to manage and conserve the refuge’s 347 acres of forested 

wetlands under alternative A. Cooperation with volunteers to plant red 

spruce and balsam fir seedlings would improve forested wetland habitat and 

increase overall acreage providing long-term benefits to associated rare plant 

communities and wildlife.

Adverse Impacts

There would be short-term impacts associated with spruce and balsam fir 

planting efforts as discussed in the Hydrology and Soils sections; however, 

impacts would be minimized by hand-carrying and hand-planting vegetation 

rather than using heavy equipment.

Forested wetlands – Aspen woodlands

Benefits

The refuge would continue to manage 114 acres of aspen woodlands within the 

347 acres of forest wetlands under alternative A. Under alternative A, a diversity 

of wildlife species on the refuge would benefit in the short- and long-term 

from continued selective patch cuts in aspen management areas (Gullion 1984). 

Benefits from patch cutting include promoting aspen regeneration, increasing 

aspen stand acreage, and improving habitat for focal wildlife species like 

American woodcock and golden-winged warbler.

Adverse Impacts

There may be short-term adverse effects to wetland soils and hydrology, wildlife 

foraging and nesting, and plants associated with aspen stands during the patch 

cuts. However, the refuge would minimize impacts when possible by carrying 

in equipment on foot and using chainsaws rather than heavy equipment to cut 

targeted aspen stands.

Effects on Freshwater Wetland Habitats
4-60 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Shrub and Herbaceous wetland

Benefits

We would continue to conserve the refuge’s 5,060 acres of shrub and herbaceous 

wetlands under alternative A. Under alternative A, there are no management 

activities specific to the shrub and herbaceous wetland habitat type that 

beneficially or adversely affect this habitat type.

Adverse Impacts

Under alternative A, there are no activities specific to shrub and herbaceous 

wetlands that would adversely affect this habitat type. However, any adverse 

impacts discussed under the heading “All Wetlands” do apply to shrub and 

herbaceous wetlands.

Open water/aquatic habitats

Benefits

The refuge would continue to manage 85 acres of beaver pond system and 55 

miles of stream under alternative A. As beaver pond systems are dynamic over 

time it is difficult to determine the extent of acreage associated with long-term 

management. Also in this alternative we allow public access to open water 

only from approved public use trails that intersect streams, corridors, or pond 

habitats. This access restriction minimizes disturbance to nesting waterfowl, 

breeding and migrating birds that use the more isolated beaver ponds and 

river habitats for nesting, feeding, and roosting areas. This will also allow for 

the natural succession necessary for the maintenance of the mosaic of plant 

communities to persist and develop.

Adverse Impacts

Under alternative A, the continuation of beaver trapping could adversely impact 

acreage of open water habitats. The benefits to rare plant communities and 

associated wildlife, however, outweigh any potential adverse effects associated 

with decreased open water acres.

All Wetlands

Benefits

We propose to substantially expand conservation of the refuge wetlands and 

markedly upgrade how we manage for focal species under alternative B. We 

would continue to conserve the refuge’s current 5,573 wetland acres. Among the 

alternatives, we would be best able to achieve our wetlands conservation and 

focal species management goals under alternative B. Our management efforts 

would be expanded well beyond our current management to include specific 

habitat manipulation and species conservation measures including broadening 

our techniques for white-tailed deer and beaver management, and management 

of habitat productivity for breeding and migratory birds.

Benefits to wetlands would increase under alternative B, in contrast to 

alternative A, through the remediation of impacted wetland areas. Unlike 

alternative A, which seeks to map and evaluate impacted wetland areas, 

alternative B seeks to restore natural wetland processes through remediation of 

impacted areas. In addition, wetlands in Canaan Valley would benefit from the 

designation of a 754-acre RNA and the development of an ecological integrity 

index that would serve to better understand, track, and improve wetland 

function and its role in providing for wetland-dependent wildlife species. The 

index would also be used to monitor changes in relation to climate change and 

restoration actions. The RNA, composed of 93% wetlands and 7% uplands, would 

Impacts of Alternative B 

(Focal Species Emphasis)

Effects on Freshwater Wetland Habitats
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-61

benefit wetland plant communities and plant species that are vanishing, rare, 

or restricted within their range by limiting human intervention and focusing on 

preservation.

Beneficial impacts to wetlands related to increases in hunting opportunities are 

discussed in the refuge’s “Amended Environmental Assessment Hunt Program 

Proposal” (April 2007). Under alternative B, benefits to wetland plants would 

increase from additional hunting opportunities and increased access to remote 

areas for deer control.

Adverse Impacts

Alternative B has increased trail miles in comparison to alternative A that 

would lead to short-term adverse impacts to wetland communities from trail 

construction activities and long-term impacts from habitat loss where trails bisect 

wetlands and from trail maintenance activities. The refuge will use and improve 

existing logging and access roads when creating trails and will avoid wetlands 

whenever possible. Short-term, indirect, adverse impacts might be observed 

during upslope trail construction activities from soil erosion and sedimentation, 

and runoff from construction equipment and vehicles. 

Construction of observation platforms, parking lots, and an environmental 

education pavilion will occur on upland soils. However, the environmental 

education pavilion will be constructed adjacent to forested wetlands and the 

Blackwater River. The refuge will adhere to best management practices for 

construction to minimize any adverse impacts to wetlands and the Blackwater 

River.

The construction of a boardwalk to connect Camp 70 loop trail to the Brown 

Mountain Overlook trail will create short-term direct impacts to wetlands 

through trail construction. No construction other than placement of boardwalk 

pilings would be done in wetlands so there would be short-term localized effects 

to hydrology and water quality during construction. However, by providing a 

connection across the wetlands, off-trail use would be prevented and subsequent 

impacts to hydrology and water quality would be mitigated.

We would continue raccoon hunting according to state seasons and current refuge 

regulations under alternative B. Anticipated effects are the same as alternative 

A. Adverse impacts to wetlands related to increases in hunting opportunities are 

discussed in the refuge’s “Amended Environmental Assessment Hunt Program 

Proposal” (April 2007).

Forested wetlands

Benefits

Under alternative B, the refuge would continue to manage and protect 132 acres 

of mixed conifer forested wetlands of the 347 acres of forested wetlands. There 

would be long-term benefits from planting red spruce and balsam fir seedlings as 

this would lead to an increase in overall acreage for this habitat type and would 

improve the health of already existing stands. While erection of white-tailed deer 

exclosures might cause short-term adverse impacts to soils and hydrology during 

construction, the exclosures would protect seedlings and associated rare plant 

communities from white-tailed deer browse. This would ensure an increase in 

seedling survival rates and provide a long-term benefit of increased red spruce 

and balsam fir stand acres, which far outweighs any short-term adverse effects. 

Effects on Freshwater Wetland Habitats
4-62 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Indiana Bats—Riparian restoration would increase foraging 

opportunities for Indiana bats. A detailed discussion on impacts to 

Indiana bats can be found in the “Effects on Endangered and Threatened 

Species, Impacts to Endangered and Threatened Species from 

Alternative B.”

Adverse Impacts

There would be short-term adverse impacts from planting of red spruce 

and balsam fir seedlings and erecting white-tailed deer exclosures as 

discussed above. 

The refuge would minimize any short-term adverse effects associated with 

planting seedlings by hand-carrying plant material and equipment where 

appropriate. If additional equipment is necessary, best management practices 

would be used to minimize adverse impacts. The construction of white-tailed 

deer exclosures would include the use of a skidsteer vehicle in some locations. 

If construction occurs on hydric soil types, short-term adverse impacts would 

be expected from soil compaction and erosion. The refuge would take care to 

limit the extent and duration of use of heavy equipment in wetter soil types to 

minimize any adverse impacts. Additional measures to protect wetland soils 

and plants include placing rubber mats over wetlands to minimize impacts from 

driving skidsteer vehicles.

Forested wetlands – Aspen woodlands

Benefits

Under alternative B, 114 acres of aspen woodlands would be managed for early 

successional habitat within the 347 acres of protected forested wetlands on the 

refuge. No more than 20% of the 114 acres would be managed within the 15 years 

of the CCP. One key management tool for aspen stand management is the success 

of beaver population management in areas adjacent to aspen management areas. 

Aspen management areas would be beneficially impacted by controlling beaver 

in areas where successional aspen stands are a focus. Managing the beaver 

population in close proximity to these aspen stands would reduce damage and 

loss of regenerating aspen thickets with the short- and long-term benefits of 

continuing to provide additional cover for focal species, like American woodcock, 

and perpetuation of rare plant communities associated with the aspen cover type. 

The refuge will develop a habitat management plan for aspen stand management.

The benefits from demonstration site establishment are listed above with the 

added benefit of improving relationships with partners, increasing awareness 

and education of importance of early-successional habitat types, and improving 

management of forested wetlands and aspen woodlands.

Adverse Impacts

There is some risk that aspen stand management and establishment of 

demonstration sites would cause short-term localized impacts on these habitats 

from prescribed burning, use of heavy equipment such as a hydro-axe, and other 

forest management practices. In hydro-axing, wide rubber tires distribute the 

equipment weight to help minimize compaction. Hydro-axing may be done at 

sites with saturated soils, but the refuge will follow best management practices 

to minimize wetland soil disturbance such as conducting operations during 

winter months when the ground is frozen. The refuge will minimize adverse 

effects by using hand crews and chainsaws to perform forest management where 

appropriate.

Indiana bat

USFWS

Effects on Freshwater Wetland Habitats
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-63

Aspen woodlands would also experience direct, adverse impacts from acreage 

loss in areas where passive management would lead to succession of these stands. 

Because these aspen stands are expected to succeed to globally rare conifer 

woodland types, the overall benefit to the wetland system outweighs the loss of 

the more common early succession aspen woodlands.

Shrub and Herbaceous wetland

Benefits

We would continue to conserve the refuge’s 5,060 acres of shrub and herbaceous 

wetlands under alternative B. Under alternative B, forest management 

techniques will be implemented to improve habitat quality for Indiana bats. For 

additional information on impacts to Indiana bats see “Effects on Endangered 

and Threatened Species, Impacts to Endangered and Threatened Species from 

Alternative B.”

Adverse Impacts

Under alternative B, there are no management activities specific to shrub and 

herbaceous wetlands that would adversely affect this habitat type. However, any 

adverse impacts discussed under the heading “Impacts to Freshwater Wetlands 

from Alternative B - All Wetlands” do apply to shrub and herbaceous wetlands.

Open water/aquatic habitats

Benefits

Under alternative B the refuge will continue to manage 85 acres of open water 

habitat and 55 miles of riparian habitats. Open water habitats are dependent 

upon fluctuating beaver populations which the refuge proposes to allow to persist 

when consistent with rare plant community conservation and habitat management 

actions. Therefore the acres of open water will fluctuate naturally over time.

The refuge seeks to restore forest cover to riparian corridors thus improving 

habitat and providing long-term beneficial impacts to brook trout, the state-listed 

rare redside dace, and the federally endangered Indiana bat. Menzel et al. (2005) 

found that Indiana bats concentrate foraging activities in forested areas rather 

than in grasslands or open fields. Restoring riparian forest connectivity and 

corridor width, through activities such as tree planting, would provide benefits 

to Indiana bats by improving and increasing foraging opportunities. In addition 

to those benefits discussed above, planting seedlings in riparian areas would 

stabilize stream banks and prevent erosion and sedimentation into the refuge’s 

streams and rivers. An additional benefit to native and rare plant communities is 

that the refuge strives whenever appropriate to use Canaan Valley seed sources 

for seedling propagation which maintains and preserves the genetic integrity of 

plant resources on the refuge and in the valley.

Adverse Impacts

The refuge will minimize any adverse impacts from riparian restoration activities 

by allowing natural succession of woody species where appropriate. In areas 

where natural succession is limited by seed sources or other factors, the refuge 

will follow best management practices for restoration efforts to minimize adverse 

effects to wetland soils and streambanks.

Effects on Freshwater Wetland Habitats
4-64 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

All Wetlands

Benefits

Benefits to refuge wetland resources are similar to alternative B although 

benefits would be lessened by increased public use and construction activities (see 

Air Quality section for a list of refuge construction projects). Increased access for 

white-tailed deer hunt compared to alternative B would lead to a decrease in deer 

herbivory and would provide long-term benefits to wetland plant communities. 

Additional impacts related to the white-tailed deer hunting can be found in the 

refuge’s “Amended Environmental Assessment Hunt Program Proposal” (April 

2007).

Similar to alternative B, additional benefits to wetlands would occur from the 

designation of a RNA. Overall benefits would lessen as only 593 acres, composed 

of 92% wetlands and 8% uplands, would be included in the RNA.

Adverse Impacts

Alternative C is anticipated to have greater adverse impacts than those discussed 

under alternative B because of the maximization of public use under this 

alternative.

The creation of a cross valley trail from Brown Mountain Overlook to A-Frame 

Road requires skirting around sensitive wetlands that contain rare and sensitive 

plant communities. The refuge would construct a boardwalk in areas where 

sensitive wetland soils and plants would be affected by foot traffic and a bridge 

over the Little Blackwater River where riverbanks would be susceptible to 

erosion. Adding this infrastructure is preferable because it will minimize adverse 

impacts to sensitive wetland soils. 

Dispersed use within the off-trail use zone would cause adverse impacts to 

wetland plant communities and wildlife. Impacts would be minimized as wetlands 

consist of only 4% of the total off-trail use zone and users would be spread over 

a large area. However, it will be difficult for the refuge to locate, monitor, and 

perform remediation measures on impacted wetlands due to unpredictable 

visitor use and spatial extent of the off-trail use zone. The refuge would minimize 

adverse impacts by limiting use to a time of year when the same or similar effects 

would come from hunting. However, visitor impacts would differ from hunting 

impacts as visitors are more likely to seek out views of streams and rivers, 

increasing the probability of adverse impacts to associated freshwater wetlands. 

In an effort to offset these adverse impacts the refuge is limiting visitor use to 

25 permits per month on Sundays during the hunting season. By issuing special 

use permits the refuge would be able gather information on the number of users, 

the days and duration of use, and approximate location of use. This information 

would enable the refuge to monitor known locations of off-trail use for damage 

and perform remediation measures as needed. For additional information on the 

impacts related to the off-trail use zone see “Effects of Public Use and Access, 

Public Use and Access Impacts from Alternative B.”

We would continue raccoon hunting according to state seasons and current refuge 

regulations under alternative B. Anticipated effects are the same as alternative 

A. Adverse impacts to wetlands related to increases in hunting opportunities are 

discussed in the refuge’s “Amended Environmental Assessment Hunt Program 

Proposal” (April 2007).

Impacts of Alternative C 

(Maximize Public Use)

Effects on Freshwater Wetland Habitats
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-65

Forested wetlands

Benefits

We would continue to conserve the refuge’s 347 acres of forested wetlands under 

alternative C. Beneficial impacts to forested wetlands are discussed in “Impacts 

to Freshwater Wetlands from Alternative B – Forested Wetlands.”

Adverse Impacts

Under alternative C, there are no activities specific to forested wetlands that 

would adversely affect this habitat type. Adverse impacts to forested wetlands 

are discussed in “Impacts to Freshwater Wetlands from Alternative B – Forested 

Wetlands.”

Forested wetlands – Aspen woodlands

Benefits

Similar to alternative B, we would manage 114 acres of aspen woodlands 

within the 347 acres of forested wetlands on the refuge. Beneficial impacts 

from alternative C are the same as those discussed in “Impacts to Freshwater 

Wetlands from Alternative B – Forested wetlands – Aspen woodlands.” Any 

additional beneficial impacts to forested wetlands and aspen woodlands specific 

to alternative C are discussed in “Impacts to Freshwater Wetlands from 

Alternative C - All Wetlands.”

Adverse Impacts

Under alternative C, there are no additional activities specific to forested 

wetlands and aspen woodlands that would adversely affect this habitat type. Any 

adverse impacts from alternative C are similar to those discussed in “Impacts 

to Freshwater Wetlands from Alternative B – Forested wetlands – Aspen 

woodlands.” Any additional adverse impacts to shrub and herbaceous wetlands 

that are specific to alternative C are discussed in “Impacts to Freshwater 

Wetlands from Alternative C - All Wetlands.”

Shrub and Herbaceous wetlands

Benefits

We would continue to conserve the refuge’s 5,060 acres of shrub and herbaceous 

wetlands under alternative C. Beneficial impacts from alternative C are similar 

to those discussed in “Impacts to Freshwater Wetlands from Alternative B – 

Shrub and Herbaceous wetland.” Any additional beneficial impacts to shrub and 

herbaceous wetlands that are specific to alternative C are discussed in “Impacts 

to Freshwater Wetlands from Alternative C - All Wetlands.”

Adverse Impacts

Under alternative C, there are no activities specific to shrub and herbaceous 

wetlands that would adversely affect this habitat type. Any adverse impacts 

from alternative C are similar to those discussed in “Impacts to Freshwater 

Wetlands from Alternative B – Shrub and Herbaceous wetland.” Any additional 

adverse impacts to shrub and herbaceous wetlands that are specific to alternative 

C are discussed in “Impacts to Freshwater Wetlands from Alternative C - All 

Wetlands.”

Open water/aquatic habitats

Benefits

Environmental consequences are the same as discussed in, “Impacts to 

Freshwater Wetland Habitats from Alternative B – Open water/aquatic 

habitats.” Any additional beneficial impacts to shrub and herbaceous wetlands 

that are specific to alternative C are discussed in “Impacts to Freshwater 

Wetlands from Alternative C - All Wetlands.”

Effects on Freshwater Wetland Habitats
4-66 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Adverse Impacts

Environmental consequences are the same as discussed in, “Impacts to 

Freshwater Wetland Habitats from Alternative B – Open water/aquatic 

habitats.” Any additional adverse impacts to open water and aquatic habitats that 

are specific to alternative C are discussed in “Impacts to Freshwater Wetlands 

from Alternative C - All Wetlands.”

All Wetlands

Benefits

Beneficial impacts from alternative D are similar to those discussed in “Impacts 

to Freshwater Wetlands from Alternative B – All Wetlands.” Wetlands and 

associated wildlife species would additionally benefit from limited vehicle access 

(same as alternative A) and a decrease in trail miles as a result of trail closures 

or changes from proposed trail connections in alternative B. If white-tailed deer 

harvest objectives are not met, the refuge would work with the state to increase 

deer hunting seasons and implement antlerless hunts to meet harvest objectives. 

These measures taken under alternative D would provide the most benefits by 

increasing the refuge’s flexibility to control white-tailed deer populations to 

benefit wetland plant communities and associated wildlife.

In alternative D we propose to eliminate night 

hunting for raccoon. The refuge has been 

concerned about disturbance to non-target 

species, including other nocturnal animals, 

as a result of this type of hunting. Although 

research has shown disturbance to be minimal 

to target species and some non-target wildlife 

(deer), the increased risk of disturbance and 

potential cumulative effects of this activity 

occurring during other regular hunt seasons 

creates a potential conflict with the overall 

goals of ensuring the biological integrity of the 

refuge. This added disturbance during a time 

when the refuge is otherwise closed to all other 

public uses detracts from the overarching goals 

of this alternative to restore natural processes 

and reduce disturbances which do not materially 

contribute to achieving historical plant and 

wildlife conditions. 

Adverse Impacts

Adverse impacts from alternative D are similar to those discussed in “Impacts 

to Freshwater Wetlands from Alternative B – All Wetlands.” However, adverse 

impacts would not be as extensive because alternative D decreases trail miles 

as a result of trail closures. Trail closures would beneficially impact associated 

wetlands by limiting disturbance and the spread of invasive species to sensitive 

wetland communities.

Forested wetlands

Benefits

We would continue to conserve the refuge’s 347 acres of forested wetlands under 

alternative D; however, the refuge would not actively manage this habitat type 

which is predicted to succeed to globally rare conifer forested wetland types. 

Additionally, we expect an increase in overall patch size and acreage of forested 

wetlands thereby expanding a rare community type. 

Impacts of Alternative D 

(Focus on Managing for 

Historical Habitat)

Fawn

USFWS

Effects on Freshwater Wetland Habitats
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-67

Adverse Impacts

Adverse impacts to forested wetlands are discussed in “Impacts to Freshwater 

Wetlands from Alternative D – All Wetlands.”

Forested wetlands – Aspen woodlands

Benefits

We would continue to conserve the refuge’s 114 acres of forested wetlands - 

aspen woodlands under alternative D. Beneficial impacts to forested wetlands 

and aspen woodlands are discussed in “Impacts to Freshwater Wetlands from 

Alternative D – Forested Wetlands.”

Adverse Impacts

Under alternative D, there are no new management activities specific to forested 

wetlands and aspen woodlands that would adversely affect this habitat type. 

Adverse impacts to forested wetlands and aspen woodlands are discussed in 

“Impacts to Freshwater Wetlands from Alternative D – All Wetlands.”

Shrub and Herbaceous wetlands

Benefits

We would continue to conserve the refuge’s 5,060 acres of shrub and herbaceous 

wetlands under alternative D. Beneficial impacts from alternative D are the same 

as alternatives B and C and are discussed in “Impacts to Freshwater Wetlands 

from Alternative B – Shrub and Herbaceous wetland.” Any additional beneficial 

impacts to shrub and herbaceous wetlands that are specific to alternative D 

are discussed in “Impacts to Freshwater Wetlands from Alternative D – All 

Wetlands.”

Adverse Impacts

Under alternative D, there are no activities specific to shrub and herbaceous 

wetlands that would adversely affect this habitat type. Adverse impacts from 

alternative D are the same as alternatives B and C and are discussed in “Impacts 

to Freshwater Wetlands from Alternative B – Shrub and Herbaceous wetland.” 

Any additional adverse impacts to shrub and herbaceous wetlands that are 

specific to alternative D are discussed in “Impacts to Freshwater Wetlands from 

Alternative D – All Wetlands.”

Open water/aquatic habitats

Benefits

We would continue to conserve the refuge’s 85 acres of open water and 55 miles of 

streams under alternative D. Beneficial impacts from alternative D are the same 

as alternatives B and are discussed in “Impacts to Freshwater Wetlands from 

Alternative B – Open water/aquatic habitats.” Any additional beneficial impacts 

to open water and aquatic habitats that are specific to alternative D are discussed 

in “Impacts to Freshwater Wetlands from Alternative D - All Wetlands.”

Adverse Impacts

Under alternative D, there are no activities specific to open water and aquatic 

habitats that would adversely affect this habitat type. Adverse impacts from 

alternative D are the same as alternative B and are discussed in “Impacts to 

Freshwater Wetlands from Alternative B – Open water/Aquatic habitats.” 

Any additional adverse impacts to open water and aquatic habitats that are 

specific to alternative D are discussed in “Impacts to Freshwater Wetlands from 

Alternative D – All Wetlands.”

Effects on Freshwater Wetland Habitats
4-68 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

We compared the management actions in the alternatives based on their potential 

to benefit or adversely affect the refuge’s native cold water fishery, including 

actions to help maintain and improve the water quality of the Blackwater River, 

the refuge wetlands, and the watershed. We evaluated the benefits of actions that 

would benefit the fishery by protecting or restoring riverine functions influenced 

by vegetation and hydrology, and to otherwise maintain or improve water quality 

which include:

■ acquiring and protecting land that would provide watershed benefits. 

■ protecting or restoring emergent wetlands.

■ restoring hydrology. 

■ improving water quality monitoring for early problem identification.

■ improving cooperation with other landowners to influence water quality in the 

watershed.

We compared the impacts of these refuge management actions with the potential 

to cause adverse effects on the fishery by:

■ altering refuge hydrology or degrading water quality.

■ applying herbicides to manage invasive species.

■ stocking of non-native brown trout.

■ prescribed fire to manage grasslands.

■ constructing refuge projects (see section on Effects on Hydrology and Water 

Quality).

■ changing recreational use that might lead to contamination by petroleum 

products, soil sedimentation, or erosion.

Benefits

Regardless of which management alternative we select, the Blackwater River 

watershed fisheries will continue to benefit from Service protection of the part of 

the watershed that provides good cover, food, and breeding habitat.

Adverse Impacts

Under all the alternatives, prescribed burning to maintain grasslands and 

silvicultural practices used to restore and enhance upland forested ecosystems 

may cause short-term, minimal, localized increases in turbidity. Controlling 

invasive plants with herbicides would not affect fisheries. This is because 

the formulation of glyphosate herbicide we would use is not toxic to fish or 

invertebrates, and quickly adsorbs to suspended and bottom sediments. 

Bait-trapping and fishing competitions would not be permitted. A law 

enforcement presence would be required to prevent the illegal taking of fish, 

littering, or trespassing.

Effects on Fisheries 

Habitats and 

Resources

Impacts That Would Not 

Vary by Alternative

Effects on Fisheries Habitats and Resources
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-69

Benefits

Protecting 166 acres of streams, rivers, and open water under alternative A 

would benefit refuge fisheries by ensuring those habitats remain available for the 

long term.

Adverse Impacts

The Blackwater River is stocked with non-native brown and rainbow trout by 

the WVDNR. There is evidence that the continuation of stocking brown trout 

adversely impacts native brook trout populations. A literature review on the 

effects of stocking brown trout found they are excellent competitors and will 

displace brook trout when introduced into brook trout waters (Lasenby and 

Kerr 2001). The presence or introduction of brown trout in a stream has caused 

brook trout to shift microhabitats, alter their vertical distribution, and in many 

incidences has preceded the disappearance of native brook trout populations 

(DeWald and Wilzbach 1992, Lasenby and Kerr 2001). Similar findings have 

been documented by the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV) (2005). 

In addition, brown trout are known vectors of disease and parasites which could 

further impact native brook trout populations in Canaan Valley (EBTJV 2005, 

Lasenby and Kerr 2001). 

We will continue to provide fishing opportunities, where approved roads or trails 

cross a waterway, from an accessible fishing pier on Timberline Road, and along 

shorelines accessible by canoes, kayaks, and other hand launched boats. Refuge 

visitors who boat and fish may cause localized, minor, short-term impacts by 

disturbing the bottom substrate in shallow water. In addition, discarded items 

such as fishing line, lures, and plastic containers present a risk for waterfowl 

and other birds. Increasing boat access would increase the risk of spreading 

aquatic invasive plants in refuge waterways. Brochures and signage would notify 

those visitors of proper precautions, including retrieving broken line and lures, 

carrying out all trash, and methods to reduce the spread of aquatic invasive 

species.

Benefits

Measures to enhance fishing opportunities include but are not limited to: 1) 

developing a coldwater fisheries restoration plan, 2) working with an interagency 

fisheries group to maintain a quality fishery while restoring native fish 

populations, 3) promoting awareness of designated fishing locations and refugespecific and state fishing regulations, 4) educating anglers on the proper use and 

disposal of aquatic bait, and 5) educating anglers on controlling the spread of 

aquatic invasive plant species. 

Under alternative B, refuge fisheries would benefit in the short- and long-term 

from wetland and riparian area restoration activities as discussed in Impacts to 

Freshwater Wetlands from Alternative B – Open water/Aquatic Habitat.

Benefits to native fish, particularly brook trout, would increase under alternative 

B as the refuge would pursue the possibility of stocking only native fish in the 

Blackwater River. This would reduce competition for resources and improve the 

health of native brook trout populations.

Adverse Impacts

Increased access will help accommodate demand for recreational fishing and 

fishing pressure in the watershed that is likely to increase with increasing 

visitation and increasing population. That increased pressure may cause 

decreases in fish populations of cold water fish such as brook trout. The 

refuge will maintain adequate cover and diverse aquatic biota, as our habitatmanagement goals and objectives were designed to do and that maintenance 

should ensure the sustainability of the fishery in the long-term.

Impacts of Alternative A 

(Current Management)

Impacts of Alternative B 

(Focal Species Emphasis)

Effects on Fisheries Habitats and Resources
4-70 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Additional short-term, localized, adverse impacts may be observed from 

refuge construction and restoration projects that might cause soil erosion 

and sedimentation into refuge waterways. The refuge will adhere to best 

management practices to minimize any potential adverse effects. Long-term 

adverse impacts from increased trail miles and trail use might pose another 

concern to refuge fisheries. Trails that have stream and river crossings would 

likely degrade over time with increased use and contribute to downstream 

sedimentation and turbidity, which has been found to be a stressor to brook 

trout (Sweka and Hartman 2001) and redside dace (Holm and Crossman 1986) 

populations that are sensitive to habitat degradation. The refuge would monitor 

stream and river crossings closely and remediate any damaged areas to minimize 

adverse impacts associated with trail use.

As in alternative A, refuge visitors who boat and fish may 

cause localized, minor, short-term impacts by disturbing the 

bottom substrate in shallow water. In addition, discarded 

items such as fishing line and lures and plastic containers 

present a risk for waterfowl and other birds. Increasing 

boat access would increase the risk of spreading aquatic 

invasive plants in refuge waterways. Brochures and signage 

would notify those visitors of proper precautions, including 

retrieving broken line and lures, carrying out all trash, 

and methods to reduce the spread of aquatic invasive plant 

species.

Adverse impacts related to stocking non-native fish are the 

same as discussed in Impacts of Alternative A. In the event 

that the state makes a determination to stock native brook 

trout rather than non-native brown trout, adverse impacts 

to native brook trout populations would lessen by reducing competition for 

resources.

Benefits

Beneficial impacts to fisheries from alternative C are the same as those discussed 

for alternative B. Benefits would be lessened in the short-term from increased 

refuge construction activities and increased visitor use. 

Benefits to native brook trout from potentially stocking native fish are the 

same as those discussed in Impacts to Fisheries Habitats and Resources from 

Alternative B.

Adverse Impacts

Adverse impacts from alternative C are similar to alternative B. However, 

indirect adverse impacts are likely to increase in the short-term from an increase 

in refuge construction activities and in the long-term from an increase in visitor 

and trail use that might lead to increased soil sedimentation and increased 

turbidity in refuge waterways. Increased visitor use would likely increase fishing 

pressure and adversely impact the refuge fisheries.

Adverse impacts related to stocking non-native fish are the same as discussed in 

Impacts that would not vary by alternative and Impacts to Fisheries Habitats 

and Resources from Alternative B.

Impacts of Alternative C 

(Maximize Public Use)

Volunteers and staff surveying dragonflies

Marquette Crockett/USFWS

Effects on Fisheries Habitats and Resources
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-71

Benefits

Beneficial impacts to fisheries from alternative D are the same as those 

discussed for alternative B, although increased benefits to native fish would 

occur by working with the WVDNR to ensuring only native fish species are 

stocked in the Blackwater River. In contrast to alternatives B and C, fisheries 

in alternative D would additionally benefit from limited vehicle access (same as 

alternative A) and a decrease in trail miles as a result of trail closures or changes 

from proposed trail connections in alternative B. We expect refuge visitation to 

increase by 10 percent, as in alternative A, a percentage difference that is likely 

to reflect a lower level of fishing pressure and habitat disturbance compared to 

alternatives B and C.

Benefits to native brook trout from potentially stocking native fish are the 

same as those discussed in Impacts to Fisheries Habitats and Resources from 

Alternative B.

Adverse Impacts

Adverse impacts would not be as extensive as alternative B and C as alternative 

D limits vehicle access (same as alternative A) and decreases trail miles as a 

result of trail closures or changes from proposed trail connections in alternatives 

B and C. This lower use would reduce adverse impacts from soil sedimentation 

and erosion, turbidity, and streambank damage associated with increased access.

Adverse impacts related to stocking non-native fish are the same as discussed in 

Impacts that would not vary by alternative and Impacts to Fisheries Habitats 

and Resources from Alternative B.

Among our highest priorities on the refuge are the preservation, enhancement, 

restoration, and management of federally threatened Cheat Mountain 

salamanders and their habitat, and researching and monitoring populations. 

Fundamental in achieving our goals at the refuge is working toward the recovery 

of Cheat Mountain salamanders by maintaining and enhancing their habitat 

where conditions are suitable with a long-term goal of expanding Cheat Mountain 

salamander populations on the refuge.

Also important are efforts to help in the recovery of the federally endangered 

Indiana bat, which has been documented on the refuge during summer and 

fall months. Initial recovery efforts will focus on further verification of the 

identification of the species and on delineating where and how the Indiana bat 

utilizes suitable refuge habitats during the year.

Although the West Virginia northern flying squirrel has been delisted, the 

refuge, along with other federal, state, and NGO partners is committed to 

protecting, managing and monitoring habitat for and populations of the northern 

flying squirrel. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was established in 

2007 describing a red spruce-northern hardwood forest protection, management, 

and restoration vision which would sustain and enhance the viability of northern 

flying squirrel populations. From this MOU the refuge has committed to 

continuing monitoring efforts for the squirrel for at least 5 years after delisting 

as well as working to improve existing red spruce forest and restore this habitat 

on refuge lands.

Impacts of Alternative D 

(Focus on Managing for 

Historical Habitat)

Effects on Endangered 

and Threatened 

Species

Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species
4-72 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

We evaluated the management actions we proposed in the alternatives for their 

potential to benefit the endangered and threatened species by protecting them or 

their potential habitat. The benefits we considered included:

■ protecting and enhancing Cheat Mountain salamanders and their habitat 

components at currently inhabited sites on the refuge; and Indiana bats where 

they occur or are likely to occur.

■ restoration projects that might enhance the suitability of refuge habitats for 

Cheat Mountain salamanders and Indiana bats.

The potential adverse effects of the Canaan Valley management alternatives that 

we evaluated included impacts from:

■ vegetation management methods that may affect the potential for successful 

recovery efforts for Cheat Mountain salamanders and Indiana bats or their 

habitats;

■ recreation facilities or construction projects that might affect species habitats; 

and

■ public activities on the refuge that might damage habitat or disturb the species.

In addition to evaluating the effects of our proposed actions on Cheat Mountain 

salamanders and Indiana bats, we are working with our WVFO to conduct an 

intra-Service section 7 consultation on all actions in this draft CCP/EA.

Benefits

Cheat Mountain salamanders—The Cheat Mountain salamander is a threatened 

species and a priority for Service protection and management. They are only 

found in West Virginia and are limited to approximately 80 disjointed populations 

from only five counties in the state. The refuge’s population represents one of 

the most northern for this species. Being a federally threatened species tied 

to highly restricted plant communities, they are also considered a priority 

for conservation by the state as detailed in the state Wildlife Action Plan 

(WVDNR 2006). 

Only one tract at the south end of the refuge has been documented as occupied 

habitat for this species. The Cheat Mountain salamander has only been 

documented on Cabin Mountain on the southeastern portion of that tract. The 

species requires high elevation mixed spruce and hardwood forests. Habitat 

requirements include a cool moist forest floor with adequate coarse woody debris 

and typically with a spruce or mixed spruce-hardwood forest overstory. Cheat 

Mountain salamanders occur in patchy distributions above 3,800 feet on refuge 

land. The smallest population of the salamander occurs on Cabin Knob with a 

known occupied habitat of only 0.5 acres. The largest known site on the refuge 

occupies at least 20 acres closer to Bald Knob. 

Surveys for this species prior to tract acquisition documented occupied habitat 

broadly and included the areas where Powderline and Three-Mile Trail cross. 

Continued surveys by refuge staff have shown occupied habitat on both the uphill 

and downhill sides of both Powderline and Three-Mile Trails (USFWS unpubl. 

data). Surveys have found salamanders adjacent to approximately 690 feet of 

Impacts That Would Not 

Vary By Alternative

Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-73

Powderline and 1,180 feet of Three-Mile Trail. Both trails are old logging roads 

used prior to refuge acquisition for timber harvest operations. As such they were 

compacted and vegetated with grass to prevent erosion and increase stability. 

Current vegetation on these trails includes a mixture of grasses and ferns. In the 

location where salamanders are found, trail width varies but does not exceed 10 

feet. In the absence of any future management trail width will remain the same 

as a result of soil compaction and grasses that remain from timber harvesting 

activities which prevent tree encroachment and growth.

Trails are narrow enough that partial forest canopy cover occurs along the length 

of both trail sections. The growth of trees adjacent to the trail is closing the 

canopy, increasing shade and soil moisture and reducing temperatures.

In all alternatives, the refuge will continue to protect known populations of Cheat 

Mountain salamanders and continue to conduct surveys to locate undocumented 

populations. Cheat Mountain salamander monitoring and research, conducted 

by the refuge and partners, will continue to focus on better understanding their 

habitat limitations, ways to improve their habitat, and mitigation to further 

recovery efforts on the refuge and other sites where populations are known 

or are likely to occur. On the refuge, long-term benefits to Cheat Mountain 

salamander populations are expected from red spruce restoration projects 

designed to increase acreage and connectivity of suitable habitat where 

populations have been documented.

The refuge will continue to coordinate with WVFO, the WVDNR, and our 

conservation partners to ensure that we utilize the best available science in our 

management decisions.

Indiana Bats—The refuge will continue monitoring efforts to determine 

foraging locations and extent of use on the refuge and conduct mist-netting 

surveys to verify presence of Indiana bats under all alternatives. Indiana 

bat documentations on the refuge are based on bat call surveys conducted 

from 2003 to 2008, which can sometimes be confused with little brown bat 

calls. Although the calls have been verified by experts, the refuge will 

conduct mist-netting surveys to further verify Indiana bat presence and 

on the refuge. Based on the bat call surveys, the refuge appears to provide 

foraging and roosting habitat for Indiana bats during the summer but no 

hibernacula or maternity colonies are known to exist in Canaan Valley. 

Additional survey efforts will improve knowledge of Indiana bat presence 

and use on the refuge thus providing long-term benefits through habitat 

improvement focused on meeting habitat requirements of Indiana bats. 

The refuge would provide long-term benefits to Indiana bats by continuing 

restoration of forested wetland and riparian habitat. 

The refuge will continue to coordinate with the Indiana Bat Recovery Team, 

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, U. S. Forest Service, and our 

conservation partners to ensure that we employ the best available science in our 

management decisions.

Adverse Impacts

Regardless of the alternative, we will continue to employ a range of management 

tools to achieve our objectives in managing for the recovery of federally listed 

species. We will use these tools only when and where necessary, and only with the 

proper training and focused application to avoid adverse impacts.

Indiana bat

USFWS

Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species
4-74 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Cheat Mountain salamanders—We will carefully plan all refuge management 

actions that we might employ in or nearby habitats to ensure that we do not 

inadvertently alter cover characteristics. We will continue to employ outreach to 

adjacent landowners to ensure that they know about our recovery and restoration 

efforts, and to encourage them to help us protect Cheat Mountain salamanders 

and their habitat. 

While foot traffic from cross-country skiers and hunters is not likely to 

adversely affect Cheat Mountain salamanders, since the salamanders generally 

emerge at the end of March and retreat underground in mid October, the 

continued maintenance of ski trails would perpetuate a narrow trail corridor 

through occupied habitat. However, the corridor itself is not considered suitable 

living habitat for the salamander and it is anticipated that the presence of the 

corridor does not completely limit movements across this trail. 

Indiana Bats—Although no known maternity colonies have been documented 

on the refuge, West Virginia is within the Indiana bat’s eastern maternity 

range (USFWS Draft Recovery Plan 2007) and a confirmed maternity colony 

was located on private land in Tucker County (Monongahela National Forest 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2008). It is likely that roosting colonies 

occur in Canaan Valley, which additional research will seek to confirm. If 

maternity and roosting colonies do exist or are likely to become established on 

the refuge, disturbance from visitor use could adversely affect Indiana bats. Any 

documented maternity or roosting colonies established on refuge lands will be 

protected from disturbance through temporary or permanent trail closures or 

creating restricted closed areas. Any actions to protect Indiana bat colonies will 

be coordinated with the WVFO.

Benefits

Cheat Mountain salamanders—Benefits to Cheat Mountain salamander 

populations are the same as those discussed in Impacts that would not vary by 

alternative.

Indiana Bats—Benefits to Indiana bats are the same as those discussed in 

Impacts that would not vary by alternative.

Adverse Impacts

Cheat Mountain salamanders—Under alternative A the refuge will continue to 

permit cross-country ski operations under current management conditions. For 

areas maintained by White Grass, this includes issuance of an annual Special Use 

Permit (SUP) with maintenance restrictions to improve habitat conditions and 

reduce wildlife disturbance. These conditions are also considered stipulations 

to ensure the activity remains compatible with the purposes of the refuge and 

the mission of the refuge system. Conditions required under the SUP include 

a four foot wide trail maintenance corridor, outside of which it is prohibited to 

cut vegetation or remove rocks or other woody debris. Maintenance operations 

are limited to occur between October 10 and April 30 to avoid times when 

salamanders are likely to be active. Skiing and grooming activities only occur 

during winter months when there is snow cover. 

Public use on Powderline and Three-Mile Trail only occurs during winter months 

by cross-country skiing and snowshoe access when there is snow on the ground. 

During these times of year, salamanders are not active and are underground 

(USFWS 2009). Furthermore, because these trails are not open to the public 

outside of the winter time, the trails and the substrate on the trails remain 

undisturbed during the time of year when the salamanders are active. Therefore 

these public uses are not likely to adversely affect Cheat Mountain salamanders.

Impacts of Alternative A 

(Current Management)

Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-75

These old roads, now public use ski trails, have an altered micro-habitat and are 

not habitat for Cheat Mountain salamanders; therefore, we do not expect this 

species to be living in these trails. Therefore, the potential for Cheat Mountain 

salamanders to be present on the trails is limited to salamanders occasionally 

crossing the trail. 

Salamanders may cross the trail in low numbers until temperatures drop and the 

salamanders are no longer active and present on the surface. Their presence on 

the surface is temperature- and moisture-dependent, thus dates of emergence 

and submergence depend on these environmental factors and can vary from year 

to year (Pauley 1978a; 1978b; Pauley 2005 in Pauley 2008c). It is estimated that 

when temperatures are below 550F salamanders are not likely to be active on the 

surface (USFWS 1991). Based on climate information from 1948 to 2000, average 

temperatures in Canaan Valley do not exceed 550F until May 14 and fall below 

550F after September 26 (Brooks pers. comm.). Under the current conditions of 

the SUP, maintenance operations can only occur between October 10 and April 

30. This is well beyond when salamanders are likely to be present on the surface. 

Therefore the chance of direct take is extremely unlikely (discountable). 

The chance of direct take from maintenance activities is further limited due to 

the expected low amount of active maintenance conducted on these trail sections. 

Maintenance typically occurs on one to two days a year on these higher elevations 

trails and consists of hand crews with one ATV and trailer to haul equipment. 

ATV use is limited to usually two passes up and down the trail to move tools 

(Chase, pers.comm). Maintenance activities typically include the removal of 

downed trees and limbs which have fallen across the trail during the previous 

season and maintaining existing waterbars to prevent erosion. Maintenance 

activities occur within a 4-foot-wide corridor of the trail – two feet in either 

direction of the center line – as stipulated in the special use permit.. Any other 

activities related to trail maintenance occur within the footprint of the trail. The 

risk of the maintenance crew encountering a salamander is extremely unlikely to 

occur (discountable). 

Trails have been noted impediments to Cheat Mountain salamander movements, 

possibly fragmenting and genetically isolating populations as well as making 

these populations more vulnerable to stochastic events. Pauley (unpubl. data in 

Service 1991) found that roads, and potentially some trails, serve as barriers that 

prevent territories of different individuals from overlapping, thus fragmenting 

populations and gene pools. Heavily traveled trails can result in removal of leaves 

and other forest litter, leaving bare trail treads (Service 1991; WVDNR 2000, 

1999). Preliminary data suggest that Cheat Mountain salamander rarely cross 

trails and other openings that lack sufficient leaf litter cover (Pauley 2005 in 

Pauley and Waldron 2008). Cheat Mountain salamander use forest floor litter 

as foraging cover and refugia, especially during the day. Therefore, the extent 

to which trails and roads serve as a barrier to Cheat Mountain salamander most 

likely depends on the site-specific characteristics such as width, canopy cover, 

substrate material, compaction, and level/type of use. 

Conditions related to blocking movements for salamanders appear to be related 

to increased temperature and humidity resulting from an open tree canopy as 

well as the removal of vegetation and leaf litter through public use activities 

creating bare soil conditions. The cross country ski trails that White Grass 

maintains are not used outside the ski season for public use and are not heavily 

traveled. Therefore excessive trampling resulting in the removal of litter and 

vegetation to create bare dirt surfaces does not occur on these trails. Because 

habitat on the trail is predominately grass and fern cover with limited rock and 

woody debris, it likely permits salamanders to move across the trail. In addition, 

Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species
4-76 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

both Powderline and Three-Mile trails are narrow and have partial canopy cover 

providing shading and cooling effects to the trail surface. This creates more 

suitable conditions for salamanders to move across the trail. The lack of bare soil 

conditions coupled with the presence of canopy cover suggest that these trails do 

not create a barrier to salamander movement. 

We do not expect the presence of these trails to fragment these populations and 

create genetic barriers. For this reason the trails are not likely to cause indirect 

adverse effects to Cheat Mountain salamanders.

Indiana Bats—Adverse impacts to Indiana bats are the same as discussed in 

Impacts that would not vary by alternative.

Benefits

Endangered and threatened species would benefit under alternative B. In 

addition to specific actions to protect and enhance habitats and promote recovery, 

we plan to encourage protection of endangered and threatened species through 

increased educational awareness and cooperation with partners to achieve 

recovery goals.

Cheat Mountain salamanders—Under alternative B, additional benefits to 

Cheat Mountain salamander populations would be expected from reforestation of 

logging roads and revegetating the edges of Powderline and Three-Mile crosscountry ski trails. Reforesting logging roads will improve habitat characteristics 

for Cheat Mountain salamanders by connecting fragmented forest blocks, 

increasing canopy cover, reducing sunlight on the forest floor, and increasing 

soil moisture. Revegetating segments of Powderline and Three-Mile trails by 

planting native tree species such as red spruce along the trails would eventually 

provide a more closed canopy over the trail and improve substrate and vegetation 

on the trail itself. Native tree species would eventually shade out all of the 

grass and fern cover which currently dominates the trails, and would improve 

microhabitat conditions for salamanders by increasing leaf litter, woody debris, 

and soil moisture (USFWS 1991). These trail improvements would provide a more 

conducive corridor for Cheat Mountain salamanders to move between upslope 

and downslope populations during the time of year when salamanders are active. 

Revegetation of refuge cross-country ski trails and increasing canopy cover is an 

additional conservation measure the refuge can accomplish to further enhance 

habitat conditions for the salamander. 

These strategies would provide long-term benefits to Cheat Mountain 

salamanders that would not otherwise be realized within the time frame of this 

CCP. 

Intra-Service consultation with the Service WVFO was conducted in 1999 and 

again in 2003 in regards to public use of the Kelly-Elkins Tract for cross-country 

ski operations. These are the only trails open for public use on the Kelly-Elkins 

Tract and the only trails which traverse known threatened species habitat. Both 

consultations concluded that the use was not likely to adversely affect the Cheat 

Mountain salamander or other species of concern as long as no new trails were 

developed and trail maintenance (tree removal and limb trimming) is limited. The 

refuge has consulted with the WVFO on the preferred alternative in the draft 

CCP/EA. The Field Office found that the proposed actions in alternative B are 

not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species (Appendix I). 

Impacts of Alternative B 

(Focal Species Emphasis)

Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-77

Indiana Bats—Indiana bats would benefit from riparian restoration, early 

successional habitat management, and forested wetland restoration activities 

under alternative B. Romme et al. (1995) states Indiana bats are known to 

forage along forest edges, in early successional areas, and along strips of trees 

extending into more open habitat with available drinking water. Improving the 

refuge’s habitats through restoration would provide long-term benefits to Indiana 

bats by increasing and improving suitable foraging habitat. Indiana bats would 

also benefit from increased monitoring efforts.

Also under alternative B, the refuge would survey for bats using acoustic 

monitoring equipment along with mist net surveys. The refuge would also 

determine summer roosting and foraging locations in Canaan Valley using radio 

telemetry of bats captured in mist nets. These increased monitoring efforts 

would help the refuge learn more about the movement patterns of Indiana bats in 

Canaan Valley and on the refuge. 

Adverse Impacts

Our management activities under alternative B are not likely to adversely affect 

Cheat Mountain salamanders or Indiana bats. The construction projects we plan 

would have small-scale, localized effects that either would not affect these species 

at all or would cause negligible effects on their habitats. 

Cheat Mountain salamanders—Adverse impacts are the same as alternative 

A. There will be no adverse impacts from the proposal in this alternative 

to revegetate portions of Powderline and Three-Mile trails. As with all trail 

maintenance activities, tree planting would only occur during the time of year 

when temperatures are below 550F (between October 10 and April 30) because 

this is when salamanders are not likely to be active on the surface (USFWS 

1991). The chance of direct take from tree planting is further limited due to the 

expected low level of active maintenance that would be needed to plant trees, the 

small area that would be affected, and the short time period needed for planting. 

Planting would occur on perhaps two or three days in the spring and the fall and 

would be limited in duration to one or two years as there is only about 1,870 feet 

of trail to plant. As with the previously mentioned trail maintenance, planting 

would be conducted by hand crews with one ATV and a trailer to haul equipment. 

ATV use is limited to usually two passes up and down the trail to move tools 

(Chase, pers.comm). All tree planting activities would occur within the current 

footprint of the trail. 

Furthermore, the ski trails have an altered 

micro-habitat and are not habitat for Cheat 

Mountain salamanders; therefore, even 

if animals were active at the time of tree 

planting, we do not expect this species to be 

living on these trails. The potential for Cheat 

Mountain salamanders to be present on the 

trails is limited to salamanders occasionally 

crossing the trail. Therefore, the risk of 

encountering a salamander on the trail while 

planting trees is extremely unlikely to occur 

(discountable) due to the time of year that 

tree planting would occur and the area within 

which the trees would be planted. Cheat mountain salamander

USFWS

Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species
4-78 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

In the future, the refuge would also consider other options such as replacing trail 

segments with boardwalks to further facilitate salamander movement across 

trails. This action is one of the recommended management guidelines in the 

recovery plan for this species (USFWS 1991). In 2009, the Monongahela National 

Forest initiated a study to design more effective road and trail maintenance 

activities to benefit Cheat Mountain salamander populations (Pauley and 

Waldron 2008). If those results apply to habitats on the Canaan Valley NWR, 

the refuge will consider implementation of similar measures. Before undertaking 

such actions we would consult with the WVFO and complete additional NEPA 

analysis as necessary. 

Indiana Bats—Adverse impacts to Indiana bats would be avoided under 

alternative B through management and restoration activities given current 

knowledge of Indiana bat use on the refuge. While the refuge would conduct 

hardwood forest cuttings to create early successional shrub habitat, cutting 

would not take place around streams, minimizing any impacts to Indiana bats. 

Indiana bat surveys would be conducted prior to cutting forest edge communities. 

Surveys will be coordinated with the WVFO.

Benefits

Cheat Mountain salamanders—Benefits to Cheat Mountain salamanders are the 

same as discussed for alternative B. 

Indiana Bats—Benefits to Indiana bats are similar to alternative B., although 

monitoring efforts in the 2,330 acre off-trail use zone will be necessary to 

determine presence of Indiana bats. If Indiana bats are found in this area, 

benefits would lessen from year round visitor disturbance. The refuge seeks to 

minimize adverse impacts in the dispersed use zone by issuing no more than 25 

permits per month and limiting use to Sundays during the hunting season.

Adverse Impacts

Cheat Mountain salamanders—Adverse impacts to Cheat Mountain 

salamanders are the same as discussed for alternative B. While visitor use is 

expected to increase under alternative C in comparison to the other alternatives, 

trail use in areas where there are known Cheat Mountain salamander populations 

only occurs during the cross-country ski season when salamanders are inactive 

and underground. There are no adverse effects anticipated from visitor use 

within the dispersed use zone because habitat within this zone is not suitable for 

Cheat Mountain salamanders.

Indiana Bats—Adverse impacts to Indiana bats, if any, are similar to those 

discussed in alternative B; however, adverse impacts would be far greater if 

maternity or roosting colonies of Indiana bats are found in the 2,330 acre off-trail 

use zone. Adverse impacts would be minimized by limiting off trail use to the 

hunting season, a period of time when Indiana bats would have already begun 

migration to their hibernacula outside of Canaan Valley (USFWS Recovery Plan 

2007).

Benefits

Cheat Mountain salamanders—Alternative D would create the greatest longterm benefits to Cheat Mountain salamanders when compared with the other 

alternatives. By completely revegetating Powderline and Three-Mile cross 

country ski trails, the refuge would be able to restore forest habitat ultimately 

providing long-term benefits by recreating microhabitat conditions necessary for 

salamander occupation (breeding and feeding). 

Impacts of Alternative C 

(Maximize Public Use)

Impacts of Alternative D 

(Focus on Managing for 

Historic Habitat)

Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-79

Indiana Bats—Benefits to Indiana bats would increase when compared to 

alternative C because alternative D would not open an area of the refuge for offtrail us. Therefore, the benefits would be similar to alternative B.

Adverse Impacts

Cheat Mountain salamanders—There will be no adverse impacts to Cheat 

Mountain salamanders under alternative D.

Indiana Bats—Adverse impacts to Indiana bats, would be avoided under 

alternative D, similar to alternative B, through management and restoration 

activities given current knowledge of Indiana bat use on the refuge.

Since refuge lands are held in the public trust by the Service, access is generally 

allowed for compatible, priority wildlife-dependent public uses. Uses are limited 

when federal trust resources will be impacted; the activity will detract from 

achieving refuge purposes or the refuge System mission, or when administrative 

resources are not available to ensure a safe, quality experience. Canaan Valley 

refuge is currently open to the following priority wildlife-dependent public 

uses: hunting, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education 

and interpretation. Under alternatives B, C, and D, we would officially open 

the refuge to fishing, which according to Service policy, is another priority, 

wildlife-dependent public use. Other uses which facilitate the priority public 

uses mentioned above include: horseback riding, bicycling, cross-country skiing, 

snowshoeing, and non-motorized boating. In the text below we describe in general 

the beneficial and adverse impacts of these uses. For more specific information on 

the potential beneficial and adverse impacts of these uses, especially in relation 

to alternative B, refer to the attached compatibility determinations (Appendix B).

Some regionally popular activities such as overnight camping and competitive 

races are not allowed on the refuge, as described in chapter 1.

We evaluated the benefits of the following management actions with the potential 

to affect the level of opportunity or visitor experience for those major activities 

listed:

■ Service fee simple land acquisition will provide permanent access for approved 

activities.

■ Improvement and/or new construction of visitor infrastructure, and the 

increased distribution of refuge information, will improve visitor experiences.

■ Increased partnerships with local, regional, and state recreational interests 

will encourage a diversity of sustainable opportunities.

■ Increased outreach and Service visibility will promote resource stewardship 

and outdoor ethics.

We evaluated and compared the following impacts that refuge management 

actions could have, or result in, on the level of opportunity and visitor 

experiences:

■ Refuge acquisition may result in the elimination of non-wildlife dependent, nonpriority activities that are presently allowed by the current owner.

■ Refuge activities may attract an unanticipated increase in visitation, resulting 

in increased conflicts or negative encounters among users.

■ Confusion could result over ownership boundaries and which laws, rules, and 

regulations apply between the refuge and other public lands. 

Effects of Public Use 

and Access

Effects of Public Use and Access
4-80 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Benefits

Regardless of alternative, we would continue to allow compatible, wildlife 

oriented public uses including hunting, fishing, observing, and photographing 

wildlife through hiking, biking, vehicle driving and horseback riding. We would 

also continue to allow cross-country skiing and snowshoeing to facilitate wildlife 

observation and photography in the winter, when access on foot is difficult. 

We would continue to provide the public with wildlife interpretation and 

environmental education opportunities. To support public use, we would continue 

to maintain the refuge facilities including the refuge headquarters, visitor’s 

center, parking lots, observation platforms, hunt blinds, kiosks, and trails.

Adverse Impacts

Increasing visitation, and increasing the opportunities for compatible, wildlifeoriented, consumptive and non-consumptive uses would combine to increase 

the risk of conflicts between humans and wildlife and habitat damage. In all 

alternatives except alternative D, user conflicts might be offset by increasing the 

number of trail miles thereby spreading out users and decreasing their numbers 

in any one location. The likelihood of minor accidents would increase, particularly 

accidents involving bicyclists, pedestrians, and horseback riders, requiring 

increased law enforcement assistance on refuge trails. Parking issues will arise 

during times of heavy use, when lots fill and people try to park in unauthorized 

locations. 

The following discussion focuses on impacts to vegetation and wildlife from 

visitor use activities. Impacts to hydrology and water quality, soils, uplands, and 

wetlands are discussed at a minimum in this section but are discussed in more 

detail in their related sections.

Impacts to Vegetation—Vegetative communities would experience direct, adverse 

impacts from pedestrians, bicycles, and horses crushing the plants where 

they exist on designated trails. Short-term effects consist of the deterioration 

of plant material, whereas long-term effects of trampling include direct and 

indirect effects on vegetation and soils like diminishing soil porosity, aeration, 

and nutrient availability through soil compaction (Roovers et al. 2004, Kuss 

1986). Compaction of soils thus limits the ability of plants, particularly rare 

and sensitive species, to revegetate affected areas (Hammitt and Cole 1998). 

Kuss (1986) found plant species adapted to wet or moist habitats are the most 

sensitive and increased moisture content reduces the ability of the soil to support 

recreational traffic. 

Horse use may cause localized impacts to plants and soils when horses are 

confined. According to Cole (1983), bark damage from tethering horses to trees 

can result in insect invasions and girdling that can ultimately kill the tree. Direct 

adverse impacts might be observed on native plants from horses browsing while 

tethered. Exposed soil and an abundance of sunlight along roads and trails 

provide ideal conditions for the establishment of invasive plant species. Invasive 

plant species may be transported into the refuge through the presence of exotic 

plant seeds in feed hay. This concern has initiated strict requirements for weed 

free hay in some natural areas. At Yellowstone National Park, Green Mountain, 

and Fingerlakes National Forests in New York only processed feed (pelletized 

or cubed hay) or certified “weed seed free” hay is allowed in the back-country 

(Oliff 2002, Zimmer 2001). Currently, there are no programs to provide or 

certify weed free hay in West Virginia or in the surrounding vicinity (Rayburn 

2001). According to the West Virginia Agricultural Extension office, two 

plants that could be easily transported in hay, via seed, are tall fescue (Festuca 

arundinacea) and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) (Rayburn 2001). 

The presence of reed canary grass has been documented on the refuge’s wet 

meadows and fields. 

Impacts That Would Not 

Vary by Alternative

Effects of Public Use and Access
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-81

Wells and Lauenroth (2007) found that horses have the potential to disperse a 

large number of seeds from a variety of plant types. Because horses take an 

average of 3 to 4 days, and up to 10 days, to eliminate the seeds they ingest, they 

represent an important vector for long distance seed dispersal from where the 

horses are kept to wildlands. 

The refuge anticipates that there will be minimal adverse impacts to plant 

communities on designated routes. Designated trails for pedestrian and bicycle 

travel consist primarily of former logging roads, skid roads, and rail grades with 

hardened surfaces or are existing trails that have been used for many years. 

Most routes designated for horse use are highly modified vehicle access roads 

and old logging roads where common grass and sedge species were planted 

for erosion control or where plant communities are nonexistent on roadbeds 

consisting of hard-packed graded surfaces. As weed-seed free hay is not available 

in West Virginia, horses could introduce invasive plant species to the trails and 

adjacent habitats on the refuge. While no rare plant species or communities are 

known to exist on the trails, some rare plants have been documented adjacent to 

trails designated for pedestrian use. Users leaving designated trails could have 

impacts to adjacent vegetation. Where impacts to vegetation are observed, the 

refuge would take necessary measures, such as remediation and trail closures, to 

restore plant communities on or adjacent to the affected trail.

Impacts to Wildlife—Short-term and long-term adverse impacts would be 

expected for wildlife populations in relation to increasing trail miles and visitor 

use. Disturbances will vary by wildlife species involved and the type, level, 

frequency, duration and the time of year activities occur. Beale and Monaghan 

(2004) found that adverse effects to wildlife increase as number of users increase. 

The study found that an animal’s response to one visitor walking down a trail 

is entirely different than its response to a group of users walking down a trail. 

The refuge recognizes that large group sizes may amplify negative effects to 

wildlife and requests that large groups notify the refuge prior to visiting to offset 

negative effects associated with large user groups, to understand which trails 

large groups prefer, and to monitor any potential adverse effects to wildlife and 

mitigate whenever necessary. Examples may include directing large groups to 

less sensitive habitats during breeding seasons or assigning refuge staff to lead 

or meet with the group while on refuge lands.

Disturbance can cause shifts in habitat use, abandonment of habitat, and 

increased energy demands on affected wildlife (Knight and Cole 1991). Miller 

et al. (1998) found bird abundance and nesting activities (including nest success) 

increased as distance from a recreational trail increased in both grassland and 

forested habitats. In this study, common species (e.g. American Robins) were 

found near trails and rare species (i.e. Blackburnian warblers) were found 

farther from trails. In some cases there is a clear link between the extent of 

disturbance and either the survival or reproductive success of individuals (e.g. 

Schulz and Stock 1993), but in many cases disturbance acts in a more subtle way, 

by reducing access to resources such as food supplies or nesting sites (Gill et 

al. 1996). Bird flight in response to disturbance can lower reproductive success 

by exposing individuals and nests to predators. For recreation activities that 

occur simultaneously (hiking, biking, and horseback riding) there would likely be 

compounding negative impacts to wildlife (Knight and Cole 1991). 

There is evidence to suggest that species most likely to be adversely affected are 

those where available habitat is limited, constraining them to stay in disturbed 

areas and suffer the costs of reduced survival or reproductive success (Gill et al. 

2001). Because of the diversity of habitats represented on the refuge, its rural 

setting, and adjacency to large tracts of protected lands, any population level 

Effects of Public Use and Access
4-82 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

effects to wildlife species from trail use might be minimized by a theoretical 

abundance of habitat on the refuge and adjacent lands. However, the reverse 

is true when the argument is applied to hunting. For species like American 

woodcock where hunting is concentrated in high quality aspen stands, these 

habitat types could become ecological traps.

Wildlife disturbance may be compounded by seasonal needs. For example, 

causing mammals to flee during winter months would consume stored fat 

reserves that are necessary to get through the winter. Hammitt and Cole 

(1998) found white-tailed deer females with young are more likely to flee from 

disturbance than those without young. Some species, like warblers, would be 

negatively affected by disturbance associated with bird watching particularly 

during the breeding season.

For songbirds, Gutzwiller et al. (1994) found 

that low levels of human intrusion altered the 

singing behavior of some species. Disturbance 

may also affect the reproductive fitness of males 

by hampering territory defense, mate selection, 

and other reproductive functions of vocalizations 

(Arrese 1987). Disturbance, which leads to reduced 

singing activity, would make males rely more 

heavily on physical deterrents, which are time- and 

energy-consuming in defending territories (Ewald 

and Carpenter 1978).

Resources and Environmental Control completed 

a document on the “The Effects of Recreation 

on Birds: A Literature Review” in April 1999 

(Bennett and Zuelke 1999). We refer to the following 

information from that document:

“Several studies have examined the effects of recreationists on birds using 

shallow-water habitats adjacent to trails and roads through wildlife refuges and 

coastal habitats in the eastern United States (Burger 1981; Burger 1986; Klein 

1993; Burger et al. 1995; Klein et al. 1995; Rodgers & Smith 1995, 1997; Burger 

& Gochfeld 1998). Overall, the existing research clearly demonstrates that 

disturbance from recreation activities always has at least temporary effects on 

the behavior and movement of birds within a habitat or localized area (Burger 

1981, 1986; Klein 1993; Burger et al. 1995; Klein et al. 1995; Rodgers & Smith 

1997; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). The findings these studies report appear in 

summary below in terms of visitor activity and avian response to disturbance.

■ Presence: Birds avoided places where people were present and when visitor 

activity was high (Burger 1981; Klein et al. 1995; Burger & Gochfeld 1998).

■ Distance: Disturbance increased with decreased distance between visitors 

(Burger 1986), though exact measurements were not reported.

■ Approach Angle: Visitors directly approaching birds on foot caused more 

disturbance than did visitors driving by in vehicles, stopping vehicles 

near birds, or stopping vehicles and getting out without approaching birds 

(Klein 1993). 

Cedar waxwing

Dave Menke/USFWS

Effects of Public Use and Access
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-83

■ Direct approaches may also cause greater disturbance than tangential 

approaches to birds (Burger & Gochfeld 1981; Burger et al. 1995; Knight & 

Cole 1995; Rodgers & Smith 1995, 1997).

■ Type and Speed of Activity: Joggers and landscapers caused birds to flush 

more than anglers, clammers, sunbathers, and some pedestrians, possibly 

because the former groups move quickly (joggers) or create more noise 

(landscapers). The latter groups tend to move more slowly or stay in one 

place for longer periods, and thus birds likely perceive these activities as less 

threatening (Burger 1981, 1986; Burger et al. 1995; Knight and Cole 1995a). 

Alternatively, birds may tolerate passing by with unabated speed whereas if 

the activity stops or slacks birds may flush (Burger et al. 1995).

■ Noise: Noise caused by visitors resulted in increased levels of disturbance 

(Burger 1986; Klein 1993; Burger & Gochfeld 1998), though noise was not 

correlated with visitor group size (Burger & Gochfeld 1998).”

Additionally, dogs frequently accompany recreationists to protected areas and 

their presence can lead to short-term and long-term adverse impacts to wildlife 

populations. Some wildlife species are particularly sensitive to the presence 

of dogs and their response to disturbance is amplified above and beyond 

disturbance effects from recreationists traveling without dogs. Declines in bird 

diversity and abundance on trails where leashed dogs were permitted were in 

excess of declines observed from human disturbance alone (Banks and Bryant 

2007). Lenth and Knight (2006) found, in areas that prohibited dogs, mule deer 

were less active up to 50 meters from recreational trails. In areas that allowed 

dogs, mule deer showed reduced activity within at least 100 meters of trails. The 

same study found similar adverse effects for small mammals including squirrels, 

rabbits, chipmunks, and mice. This means that there is a certain area around 

recreational trails that becomes unsuitable habitat for certain wildlife species, 

even though the habitat would otherwise be suitable (Lenth and Knight 2006). In 

addition, native carnivores, bobcats and coyotes, also appear to shift their periods 

and areas of activity to avoid peak times of recreational use (George and Crooks 

2006). In all alternatives, the refuge permits dogs on leashes. This restricts dog 

activity to a narrower trail corridor and minimizes adverse effects to canine 

sensitive wildlife species. Additionally dogs will not be permitted off-trail except 

for hunting.

We will take all necessary measures to mitigate those effects, particularly where 

group educational activities are involved. We will evaluate the sites and programs 

periodically to assess whether they are meeting the objectives, and to prevent 

site degradation. The refuge trail monitoring plan addresses the potential 

physical impacts of the trail bed, including percent trail incision, exposed 

roots and puddles. The plan also addresses the number of “bootleg trails” and 

trail width. The refuge also established a list of criteria (see Compatibility 

Determinations for public uses) that will be used to evaluate when the level of use 

or the manner of the use becomes incompatible with the mandate to protect the 

physical resources (soils, vegetation) of the refuge. If the use causes evident and 

unacceptable adverse impacts, the refuge would rotate the activities to secondary 

sites, or curtail or discontinue them. Mitigation measures to prevent or limit the 

effects of public use are primarily tied to trail design and annual maintenance. 

Actions such as annual water bar clearing, removing downed brush and blocking 

areas of active bootleg trials can effectively reduce the overall physical impact 

of trail use on the refuge. We will post and enforce refuge regulations, and 

establish, post, and enforce closed areas.

Effects of Public Use and Access
4-84 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Benefits

The refuge will continue to provide 40.6 miles of roads and trails (see the text box 

below for a comparison of trail miles across all alternatives) to facilitate wildlife 

observation and photography interpretation and education on the refuge. Other 

than completing an Americans with Disabilities Act accessible boardwalk loop 

on the Freeland tract that gives visitors an opportunity to experience refuge 

wetlands and their plants and wildlife, no other improvements to infrastructure 

are planned. The refuge will continue to operate the visitor’s center to educate 

and inform visitors about the refuge’s resources and viewing opportunities.

Adverse Impacts

A 10 percent increase over current visitation, resulting in an expected 22,000 

annual visitors over the next 15 years, is predicted based on regional tourism 

trends and planned visitor services activities. We do not anticipate that this 

increase would adversely affect resources or use and enjoyment by visitors 

because the increases projected for the refuge would be well-distributed. Adverse 

impacts would be the same as those described in Impacts that would not vary by 

alternative.

Adverse impacts from permitting leashed dogs to accompany visitors on 

refuge trails are the greatest under alternative A when compared to the other 

alternatives because there is no stipulation on leash length in alternative A. 

The zone of habitat disturbance would increase or decrease depending on leash 

length, creating variable and unpredictable disturbance for wildlife species in 

comparison to the other alternatives.

Table 4.11. Trail Miles and Designated Uses for each Alternative 

Trail Use

Alternatives (in miles)

ABCD

Pedestrian 30.2 34.4 37.3 28.7

Bicycle 21.7 25.5 26.8 20.2

Horseback 20.7 20.7 20.7 19.2

Vehicle 7.0 7.0 7.9 7.0

Cross-Country Ski and Snowshoe (trails open seasonally) 10.4 10.4 10.4 9.7

+Total Miles of Trail 40.6 44.8 48.6 38.4

Benefits

Under alternative B, a total of 44.8 miles of trails would be available for wildlife 

observation and photography, which is an increase of 4.2 miles of trail in 

comparison to alternative A. As in alternative A, off-trail use would be allowed 

by special use permit only. Additionally, a number of visitor infrastructure 

construction and improvement projects will provide and expand opportunities for 

the public to participate in wildlife-oriented activities.

Adverse Impacts

A 15 percent increase over current visitation, and an increase in opportunities 

for compatible, wildlife-oriented, consumptive and non-consumptive uses would 

combine to increase the risk of conflicts between humans and wildlife and habitat 

damage. Conflicts between users might be offset by increasing the number of 

trail miles thereby spreading out users and decreasing their numbers in any one 

location. The likelihood of minor accidents would be greater, particularly those 

Impacts of Alternative A 

(Current Management)

Impacts of Alternative B 

(Focal Species)

Effects of Public Use and Access
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-85

involving bicyclists, pedestrians, and horseback riders that will require law 

enforcement assistance on refuge trails. Parking issues will arise during times of 

heavy use, when lots fill and people try to park in unauthorized locations.

With increasing visitation, additional visitor infrastructure, and an increase in 

the total number and miles of trails available, adverse impacts related to visitor 

use would increase. In addition to expanding the trail system, the refuge will 

open the western portion of Brown Mountain Overlook to bicycle use. While 

pedestrian impacts to trails have been described in Impacts that would not 

vary from all alternatives, additional adverse impacts would occur from bicycle 

use on the trail. In an analysis conducted by Natural Resource Conservation 

Service in 2002, 35 % of the Brown Mountain Overlook trail was rated as “high” 

for compaction potential and severely limited for hiking trails. Trail erosion 

potential was generally low compared to soils associated with trails; however 

there are short segments that are a concern (Bell 2002). In order to minimize 

impacts, the refuge would improve those segments identified by Natural 

Resource Conservation Service and monitor and remediate as needed.

While evidence suggests that leashed dogs create a zone of disturbance for 

wildlife species, the refuge would restrict leash length to 8 feet in this alternative 

to minimize the zone of disturbance.

Benefits

This alternative provides the most opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography. Alternative C will provide about 48.6 miles of trails, which is an 

increase of about three miles of trails from alternative B. Under alternative 

C additional opportunities for wildlife observation and photography would be 

provided by constructing a cross valley trail from Brown Mountain Overlook trail 

to A-Frame Road. The creation of the cross valley trail will lead visitors around 

a beaver pond complex on the west, through a cottongrass bog on an existing 

rail grade, and up through a northern hardwood forest to connect with A-Frame 

Road on the east. As in alternative B, the trail from Camp 70 Road to Cortland 

Road would provide key connectivity to the trail system within the refuge from 

the north end to the south end of the valley. The refuge would also construct a 

parking lot and an ADA accessible observation platform on the Camp 70/Delta 

13 trail if the West Virginia Department of Transportation abandons the road. 

Also in alternative C, the refuge would provide a 2,330 acre off-trail use zone that 

will be accessible to visitors on Sundays during the refuge’s hunting season for 

wildlife observation and photography. This area will give visitors the opportunity 

to experience and explore off trail refuge habitats like speckled alder and spirea 

stands, forested wetlands, spruce-fir and northern hardwood forests, rivers, 

streams, and ponds. 

Adverse Impacts

In comparison to all other alternatives, alternative C 

has the greatest potential for short-term and longterm adverse impacts. In addition to the adverse 

impacts discussed for alternative B, additional and 

similar adverse impacts would be observed with the 

construction of the two new trails discussed above, the 

potential Camp 70 road improvement, parking lot, and 

observation platform, and maximizing off-trail use on the 

refuge. Because visitor use is projected to increase by 20 

percent, the most of any alternative, there would be the 

risk of increased conflicts between humans and wildlife 

and increased habitat damage. 

Impacts of Alternative C 

(Maximize Public Use)

Staff day hike

USFWS

Effects of Public Use and Access
4-86 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Under alternative C, if West Virginia Department of Transportation abandons 

Camp 70 road, the refuge would improve the road either half-way to the end 

or all the way to the end, where the road overlooks a series of Beaver ponds. 

Where the road improvements end a parking lot and observation platform would 

be constructed. Adverse impacts related to soils, hydrology and water quality, 

and uplands would be minimal and are discussed in their respective sections. 

Although adverse impacts would be expected to increase where the entire 

road length is improved, all construction activities would take place on highly 

modified upland soils leading to no net loss of upland habitat. The improvement 

of Camp 70 road would increase vehicle access into the refuge which would 

increase disturbance to wildlife, like snipe and American bittern and waterfowl 

using adjacent beaver ponds. It could also have detrimental effects on amphibian 

populations through direct mortality of individuals crossing the road and indirect 

effects associated with water runoff. 

Construction of a cross-valley trail connecting the Brown Mountain Loop trail 

and A-frame Road using an existing railroad grade, under this alternative would 

affect wetlands and their associated plant communities. A conceptual design and 

tentative location for a trail are identified in the Canaan Valley National Wildlife 

Refuge – Cross valley trail feasibility study (Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB 

Inc.), Inc 2008)). This trail would be modified to skirt wetland areas to reduce 

impacts and constructed boardwalk distance. The trail would be approximately 

three miles long, designed to route visitors through thickly vegetated bog habitat 

interspersed with beaver ponds crossing over the Little Blackwater River before 

continuing due east, up steep grades on Cabin Mountain until reaching A-Frame 

Road. Creation of the trail would require considerable infrastructure. 

In areas where the existing railroad grade needs improvement and where 

sensitive wetland plant communities would be adversely impacted, a boardwalk 

would be constructed. Due to steep topography access to the rail grade for 

construction purposes does not appear to be feasible from Camp 70 road and 

would require road improvement from A-Frame road. In addition, new trail 

construction would be necessary to route the trail around an existing beaver 

pond and connect to the Brown Mountain Overlook trail on the west and A-Frame 

Road on the east. 

Construction of boardwalks over sensitive wetlands and a bridge over the Little 

Blackwater River would have short-term adverse affects to sensitive wetlands 

from the installation of pilings for boardwalk and bridge placement; however, 

further investigations on construction alternatives are necessary to determine 

adverse impacts. In order to make an assessment of impacts, the refuge needs to 

conduct investigations of subsurface conditions to determine foundation support 

options. Each option would require a different type of equipment and impacts 

associated with that equipment would vary depending on the types of equipment 

used. For example, a relatively thin layer of organic matter (e.g. 0-4 feet in 

depth) may only require a hand auger for pile placement, which would create 

localized and minimal adverse impacts. If organic matter depths are determined 

to be greater than five feet, heavier equipment would likely be needed and the 

feasibility of mobilizing this equipment to the site is questionable (Haley & 

Aldrich Inc., 2008). Due to the remote location and accessibility issues of this trail 

the refuge may have difficulty getting the appropriate construction equipment 

to the site without causing severe soil erosion, compaction and loss of plant 

communities.

There would be minimal long-term adverse effects to sensitive wetland vegetation 

from shading created by the boardwalks. When compared to the use of other trail 

infrastructure as analyzed by VHB Inc. (2008), elevated boardwalks were found 

Effects of Public Use and Access
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-87

to offer the most protection to wetland plant communities by eliminating direct 

impacts associated with foot travel off of the existing railroad grade to avoid 

seasonally wet or inundated sections of the trail. VHB Inc. (2008) estimates that 

only 0.2 acres of wetland vegetation would be adversely impacted from boardwalk 

shading. 

Through the construction process as well as once the route is established, 

sensitive wetland plant communities and rare species could be adversely 

impacted through the introduction of invasive or exotic species. This would be 

particularly detrimental in an area where the plant communities have been 

labeled as ‘pristine.’ Allowing public use, in the form of foot travel, would 

likewise increase the probability of introducing invasive species into this area. 

Garlic mustard, as an example, is an invasive weed that easily establishes along 

roadsides and trail edges and has been found in multiple locations on A-frame 

road. It spreads quickly by sticking to animal fur, being carried by flowing water, 

and introduction associated with human activities. Garlic mustard seeds could 

easily be spread down the trail by trail construction and public use activities. 

Construction equipment could easily carry seeds and soil disturbance created 

by construction would provide an opportunity for species establishment in new 

locations along the road. In addition, Stout (1992) found that trails created 

through emergent wetlands in Canaan Valley were colonized by barnyard grass 

(Echinochloa crusgalli). This species is on the state list of invasive exotic plants 

and has the ability to displace native plants. Preventing the spread of invasive 

species is a refuge priority. As such, the refuge would seek to minimize adverse 

impacts by proactively monitoring for and aggressively treating any documented 

invasive or exotic species.

Increasing public access into an otherwise remote and undisturbed area of the 

refuge is also likely to increase wildlife disturbance. Most of the cross valley trail 

occurs in open habitat and along ecotones creating greater potential for flushing 

or disturbing wildlife utilizing these habitats. 

In order to reduce impacts to soils and plant communities along the cross valley 

trail the refuge would have to mow vegetation on the trail in effort to clearly 

delineate the trail corridor and keep pedestrians from deviating from the trail. 

Trail maintenance in the middle of Canaan Valley will be difficult and the 

transportation of maintenance equipment into the valley could adversely affect 

wetland soils and soils on the steep gradient leading to/from A-Frame and Camp 

70 Roads increasing the possibility for soil erosion and sedimentation.

Trail construction under this alternative would create adverse impacts to 

wetlands, uplands, soils, hydrology, and water quality. These impacts are 

discussed in their respective sections.

As in alternative B, we would restrict dog leashes to 8 feet in length, therefore 

minimizing the zone of disturbance from dogs. 

In addition to the adverse impacts listed above and 

in Public Use and Access Impacts that would not 

vary by alternative, adverse impacts to vegetation, 

wildlife, rivers, streams, and open water from off 

trail use would likely be greater in alternative 

C. In contrast with trails where disturbance is 

concentrated around the trail corridor, disturbance 

from off-trail use would be widespread within the 

off-trail use zone and similar to impacts associated 

with hunting activities. Numerous studies have 

Examples of Rare Plants Known to Occur in the 

Off-Trail Use Zone

Balsam Fir (Abies balsamea)

False Violet (Dalibarda repens)

Silvery Sedge (Carex canescens)

Black-girdled wool-grass (Scirpus atrocinctus)

Pussy Willow (Salix discolor)

Sweet-scented Indian Plantain (Hasteola suaveolens)

Effects of Public Use and Access
4-88 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

found for wildlife that the area of disturbance 

is greatest for off-trail recreational activities 

(Miller et al. 2001) and that wildlife response 

was greatest when human activity was spatially 

unpredictable as it would be in the off-trail use 

zone (Schultz and Bailey 1978, MacArthur et 

al. 1982, Hamr 1988, Kenny and Knight 1992, 

Knight and Cole 1995). Off trail use would 

also adversely impact plant communities as 

occasional trampling has been shown to cause 

severe disturbance and structural damage to 

plants (Roovers et al. 2004). This is especially 

problematic for rare and sensitive plant species 

and communities that are known to occur within 

the off-trail use zone. Sweet-scented Indian 

plantain (Hasteola suaveolens), a state species 

of special concern that is found only in riparian 

corridors, would be particularly susceptible to 

off-trail activities concentrated along the Blackwater River. Adverse impacts to 

soils and hydrology

might also occur from off trail use. Because the use will be widespread over 

2,330 acres it will be difficult for refuge staff to monitor disturbance and perform 

remediation measures when necessary. 

The refuge does seek to minimize adverse effects by designating the location, 

the timing, and the duration of off-trail use activities. In the off-trail use zone, 

no more than 25 permits would be issued per month and the use would occur 

on Sundays during the hunting season under alternative C. This would limit 

the extent of off-trail wildlife disturbance to a time of year when the same 

responses would be elicited from hunting activities. In addition, the refuge seeks 

to minimize damage to plant communities, especially those that provide ground 

cover, by allowing off trail use outside of the growing season for most plants. 

Senescence for most plant species on the refuge takes place prior to October.

Benefits

In general, under alternative D, public use opportunities would be similar to 

alternative A. Alternative D would provide trails totaling 38.4 miles, which is 

a decrease in trail miles compared to the other alternatives. In addition, the 

refuge would not allow access to the off-trail use zone discussed in alternative 

C. A reduction in public use activities would allow greater protection of refuge 

resources. 

Adverse Impacts

Under alternative D, adverse impacts would lessen in comparison to the other 

alternatives. Alternative D would reduce the number of trail miles available for 

public use and would not open an area of the refuge for off-trail use.

Adverse impacts from allowing dogs to accompany visitors are the same as 

alternative B.

According to the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing 

regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations §1508.7, “Cumulative impact” is 

the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes 

such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

Impacts of Alternative D 

(Focus on Managing for 

Historical Habitat)

Cumulative Impacts

Mountain ash

Ken Sturm/USFWS

Cumulative Impacts
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-89

This cumulative impacts assessment includes other agencies’ or organizations’ 

actions if they are inter-related and influence the same environment. Thus, this 

analysis considers the interaction of activities at the refuge with other actions 

occurring over a larger spatial and temporal frame of reference.

Air Quality

None of the alternatives are expected to have cumulative adverse impacts on 

air quality locally or regionally in West Virginia. Some short-term, localized 

deterioration in air quality would be expected from air emissions of motor 

vehicles used by refuge visitors and staff. Visitors would access the refuge by 

automobile, with approximately 50 percent of the more than 25,000 annual visits 

expected to originate outside the Tucker County area. For most visitors the 

refuge would be one of several stops when they make this area their destination. 

Our trails and activities will complement those of other land managers in the 

area to enhance visitors’ experience. 

We predict no cumulative impacts to Class 1 airsheds from our actions; the 

closest Class 1 area being the United States Forest Service’s Dolly Sods 

Wilderness Area which borders the refuge. The air quality and visibility 

problems that occur there are caused by ozone and particulate emissions from 

major sources to the west and north. Actions at the refuge would not contribute 

to that problem.

With our partners, we would continue to contribute to improving air quality 

through cooperative land conservation and management of natural vegetation and 

wetlands. Protecting land from development, and maintaining it in natural upland 

vegetation or wetlands, assures these areas would continue to filter out many air 

pollutants harmful to humans and the environment.

Soils

The greatest past, present, and foreseeable future adverse impacts on the soils in 

the Blackwater River watershed are largely from recreational activities (e.g. ATV 

races in Canaan Valley’s sensitive wetlands) conducted prior to refuge acquisition. 

We will improve watershed soil conditions and minimize site-level soil impacts by 

restoring the vegetation of developed sites, roads, and trails; limiting recreational 

use to trails; employing best management practices on restoration and 

construction sites; collaborating in protecting land with important habitat; and 

exchanging technical information with landowners throughout the watershed.

We would accomplish that to some degree under alternative A. Under 

alternatives B, C, and D, we propose a wide range of restoration and mitigation 

practices to improve soil conditions on all refuge land in the watershed.

Hydrology and Water Quality

Restoring disturbed sites and unused roads and trails on refuge lands would 

produce cumulative benefits for water quality. More intensive measures to 

restore natural hydrology, such as removing culverts, recontouring railgrades, 

restoring wetlands, and restoring riparian areas would also produce cumulative 

benefits under alternatives B, C, and D.

None of the alternatives would produce major, adverse, cumulative effects on 

water quality. We would use best management practices and measures to control 

erosion and sediment on construction sites to ensure minimal impacts. Those 

projects are widely dispersed through the refuge, so their local effects would not 

be additive.

Cumulative Impacts
4-90 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources – Conserved Habitats and Focal Species

All alternatives would maintain or improve biological resources on the refuge, 

in the Blackwater River watershed, and within the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and 

Valley ecosystem. The combination of our management actions with other 

organizations’ actions could result in major, beneficial cumulative effects by: (1) 

increasing conservation and management for federal and state-listed threatened 

and endangered species; (2) improving uplands and regionally declining wetland 

habitats; and (3) preventing spread or reducing invasive plants and animals.

The Service staff recognizes that all uses of refuge lands create some impact 

on refuge wildlife and their habitats. Those refuge uses, taken together, have 

the potential to create accumulating impacts as the number of uses increases. 

Because of that potential, refuge uses are limited to those which we have 

formally determined to be compatible with the purposes for which the refuge 

was established and the mission of the refuge system. The refuge acknowledges 

that increasing public use could cumulatively impact biological resources and 

contribute to habitat degradation in the off-trail use zone where consumptive and 

non-consumptive use areas overlap. These uses that take place within the same 

general timeframe create an overall greater zone of disturbance than either use 

taken individually. When we review those formal compatibility determinations 

(every 10 to 15 years), we will consider possible accumulating affects that may 

have occurred in succeeding years, and will address them as necessary. We do 

not expect alternatives A, B, C, or D to have major cumulative impacts. 

There would be no significant cumulative adverse effects to biological resources 

under any of the alternatives because the changes in habitat components that 

we would manage for directly or expect to realize through natural succession 

would balance to be beneficial. Biological resources that we would manage to 

prevent their introduction, limit, or eliminate, such as invasive plants, are not 

natural components of the Canaan Valley refuge ecosystem. Losses of those biotic 

components where they occur would not be considered adverse.

Executive Order 12898 “ Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (February 11, 1994), requires 

that federal agencies consider as part of their action, any disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects to minority and low income 

populations. Agencies are required to ensure that these potential effects are 

identified and addressed.

The EPA defines environmental justice as; “the fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with 

respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental 

laws, regulations, and policies.” In this context, fair treatment means that no 

group of people should bear a disproportionate share of negative environmental 

consequences resulting from the action.

Consideration of the potential consequences of the proposed action for 

environmental justice requires three main components:

■ A demographic assessment of the affected communities to determine whether 

minority or low income populations are present;

■ An integrated assessment of all potential impacts identified to determine if any 

results in a disproportionately high and adverse impact to these groups; and

■ Involvement of the affected communities in the decision-making process and in 

the development and implementation of any mitigation strategies.

Environmental Justice

Existing Socio-Economic 

Conditions

Environmental Justice
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-91

Minority populations are not likely to be affected at the refuge. The minority 

populations of both Tucker County and Randolph County were 1.2 percent and 

2.3 percent, respectively (Census 2000). This constitutes a substantially smaller 

proportion of the total population than that for the state of West Virginia, 6 %, 

and for the Nation as a whole, 24.9%.

Socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are present and may be affected by 

actions taken at the refuge. The percent of individuals who are socioeconomically 

disadvantaged (living in poverty) in West 

Virginia is 17.9% (Table 2.3). Tucker County’s poverty level exceeded both the 

state and national average at 18.1%.

The communities surrounding the refuge are relatively homogenous; minority 

groups do not represent a substantial portion of the affected community. No 

differential impacts based on minority status would therefore be anticipated 

under any of the alternatives.

Tucker County, West Virginia is a socially disadvantaged community with 

a greater percentage of persons living below poverty than the state overall. 

Therefore, environmental justice considerations do apply to actions taken 

by the Service at the refuge with respect to potential adverse effects on the 

socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. 

Economically, these communities would benefit under all management alternative 

in terms of realizing increased revenues to offset property taxes on acquired 

lands and in terms of additional jobs and increased personal income. It is not 

likely that any of these communities would be adversely affected by loss of access 

to game or fish for those who use them to supplement their annual diet, because 

hunting and fishing will remain a part of compatible activities on the refuge.

Summary of Consequences 

to Environmental Justice

Field sparrow nest

Ken Sturm/USFWS

Environmental Justice
 Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives

Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding 

Priority Public Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for 

Historic Habitats

Air Quality

Impacts that would not vary by Alternative

No adverse affects to regional air quality, regardless of management alternative. None of the alternatives would violate EPA standards; all four would be in compliance with the Clean Air Act. None of the proposed management alternatives would affect visibility. Although we would conduct prescribed burns to manage grassland and invasive species, we would monitor and control the burning carefully to keep the risk of wildfire low. When using herbicides we will take all precautions with respect to wind conditions, time of day, and proper equipment to ensure that we expose only target plants to the chemical. We will make responsible energy use fundamental in the development and operation of our lands and facilities, as well as in contractor and commercial visitor services.Proposed refuge management activities would neither substantively benefit nor adversely affect currently good local and regional air quality, with no violations of federal or state Clean Air Act standards, no impacts to nearby Class I areas, and no cumulative effects on regional ozone or particulate matter pollutant levels.Minor air quality benefits from the air pollutant filtering effects of 16,183 acres of upland, riparian and wetlands vegetation and from adopting energy efficient practices. There would be a negligible reduction in atmospheric carbon due to the sequestering effects of 6,962 forested acres.Limited ground disturbing activities and limited introduction of new emissions sources will minimize impacts. 10 percent increase in annual refuge visits by motor vehicle would cause a minor increase in air emissions in the long term and contribute minimally to potential cumulative effects.

Effects similar to alternative A. No substantive change in air quality; no violation of standards, no impacts to Class I areas, and no cumulative effects. Locally more minor long-term benefits than alternative A but also more potential shortterm adverse effects.Benefits would increase from maintaining additional forested acres within acquisition boundary.Forest restoration and stand enlargement would increase carbon sequestration benefits.Trail, infrastructure, and parking lot construction would cause minor shortterm, localized impacts from vehicle and equipment emissions and dust during construction.A 15 percent increase in annual visitation would result in more motor vehicles and therefore higher local air pollutant emission levels than in alternative A over the longer term, and would increase the potential for cumulative effects.

Alternative C would have benefits similar to alternative B, although increased shortterm, localized impacts are expected from increases in visitor use and additional trail and infrastructure construction activities.

Alternative D would have the greatest long-term benefits to air quality through the long-term predominance of mature forest stands and increased forest restoration minimally increasing carbon sequestration. Impacts from infrastructure and parking lot construction are similar to alternative B.

4-92 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives Table 4.12:
Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding 

Priority Public Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for 

Historic Habitats

Hydrology and Water Quality

Impacts that would not vary by Alternative

Acquisition and conservation of more than 8,932 additional acres of wildlife habitat within the acquisition boundary would further benefit water resources because acquisition would increase watershed protection, which would ensure the integrity of wetland habitats. Stringent precautions in conducting refuge management activities such as herbicide application would prevent chemical contamination of water directly through leaks or spills or indirectly through soil runoff.Alternative A would provide minor watershed benefits and cause minimal adverse effects to refuge hydrology and water quality. Acquiring 8,949 additional acres of upland forest, wetlands and other lands within the acquisition boundary would increase protection of the watershed.Stringent precautions in conducting refuge management activities would prevent chemical contamination of water directly through leaks or spills or indirectly through soil runoff.An increase in visitor use activities might cause river and stream soil sedimentation and petroleum product contamination. Public outreach on that and other issues such as invasive aquatic weeds, invasive fish, and lead contamination would help mitigate that risk.

Local hydrology would improve through road reconstruction, road removal, culvert removal, and hydrologic restoration of wetland complexes.Designation of a 754-acre Research Natural Area (RNA) would benefit wetlands and associated rivers and streams by preserving wetland plant communities and rare plant species.Trail, infrastructure, and parking lot construction would cause minor shortterm, local effects from soil runoff and sedimentation. A refuge-run shuttle service would minimally impact Glade and/or Sand Run during the first 3 days of deer-gun season.

Benefits from alternative C would lessen from increases in public use and construction activities.Designation of a 593-acre RNA would benefit wetlands and associated rivers and streams by limiting human intervention, preserving wetland plant communities and rare plant species.Additional trail, road (Camp 70 improvement) and infrastructure construction would increase potential for short-term effects to hydrology and water quality from soil erosion and siltation. Impacts of a refuge-run shuttle service would increase in comparison to alternative B by expanding the number of days in operation.Impacts to the refuge’s water resources would increase from opening a 2,330-acre off-trail use zone. To minimize impacts, only 25 special use permits will be issued per month during the refuge’s hunting season. Information obtained from special use permits will allow refuge personnel to monitor and perform remediation.

Alternative D would have impacts from increased visitation and outreach efforts similar to alternative A.Alternative D would have benefits from designating a RNAImpacts from construction and a refuge-run shuttle service are similar to alternative B.There is no off-trail use zone in alternative D so degradation of water resources would be eliminated. 

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-93

Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives
Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding 

Priority Public Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for 

Historic Habitats

Soils

Impacts that would not vary by Alternative

Maintaining native vegetation cover in all alternatives will stabilize soils and minimize erosion. Adverse impacts to soils would likely occur from restoration activities, habitat management, invasive species control, refuge infrastructure construction, and activities related to wildlife observation and photography. To minimize impacts, we would use best management practices; conduct all prescribed burns under a strict prescription and in optimal weather conditions; permit haying and mowing only in dry grassland areas and only on a rotational basis; use approved herbicides to control invasive plants; and limit public use to designated areas or zones.Soil stability has improved since refuge acquisition due to the prohibition of all vehicles from sensitive habitats and allowing vehicle access only on designated roads.Minor, short-term, localized soil disturbance (i.e., compaction, erosion) from native species replanting, prescribed burning, haying/mowing, herbicide application, hydroaxing and heavy equipment use, and other management practices. The refuge will follow best management practices (BMPs) to minimize impacts to soils.Visitor use in the form of hiking, biking, and horseback riding would impact soils through compaction, erosion, and sedimentation. Impacts are minimized by using a trail/route checklist to determine whether an existing or new trail meets established criteria. The refuge is most constrained under alternative A from implementing methods to reduce soil loss from wetland areas impacted by erosion and sedimentation.

Alternative B would increase long term benefits to soils through reclamation of natural soil productivity on restored wetlands and uplands, and obliterating, recontouring and revegetating old logging roads and trails.Minor short-term, localized soil compaction and long-term loss of productive soil where soils are removed or surfaced for visitor infrastructure and trails. No construction except boardwalk pilings for trail access would be done in wetlands; boardwalks over saturated areas would protect wetland soils and sensitive vegetation.A refuge-run shuttle service would increase the potential for soil sedimentation and streambank erosion.

Benefits to soils from alternative C would lessen from increases in public use and construction activities.Additional trail (Brown Mountain overlook to A-Frame Road), road (Camp 70 improvement), and infrastructure construction would increase potential for short-term localized impacts to sensitive wetland soils. To minimize longterm impacts no construction except boardwalk pilings for trail access would be done in wetlands; boardwalks over saturated areas and a bridge over the Little Blackwater River would protect wetland soils and sensitive vegetation.Increased potential for soil sedimentation and streambank erosion because of the off-trail use zone and the expanded time frame for the refuge-run shuttle service. 

Impacts to soils are similar to alternative B. However, soils would benefit from a decrease in trail miles, limiting vehicle access, and limiting visitor use to designated roads and trails.

4-94 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives
Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding 

Priority Public Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for 

Historic Habitats

Socioeconomic Environment

Impacts that would not vary by Alternative

Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations across all alternatives represent well less than one percent of total income and total employment in the overall Tucker County and the city of Elkins economy. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the Canaan Valley communities near the refuge such as Davis, Thomas and Parsons where most of the refuge’s public use related economic activity occurs. For social impacts, there are no actions that would not vary by alternative. Refuge management activities directly related to all refuge operations generate an estimated $1.62 million in local output, 15.6 jobs and $344 thousand in personal income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities under alternative A would generate total economic impacts of $1.95 million in local output, 20.9 jobs and $442.7 thousand in personal income. Hunting: Hunting helps maintain healthy animal populations, reduces deer browse, and supports a local cultural activity. Although some members of the public may consider the use of pursuit dogs inhumane, that issue was not commonly mentioned during public scoping. Permitting hunters off-trail and permitting hunting dogs offleash may be seen as unfair to non-hunters who are required to stay on trails and keep dogs leashed. Although user conflicts may arise between hunters and non-hunters in some parts of the country, it has not been an issue at this refuge. Safety issues are minimized by enforcing State and refuge hunting regulations.

Refuge management activities directly related to all refuge operations generate an estimated $1.71 million in local output, 16.3 jobs and $361.6 thousand in personal income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would generate total economic impacts of $2.05 million in local output, 21.9 jobs and $465.9 thousand in personal income. Hunting: Same benefits as Alternative A, plus an increase in the available areas on the refuge that are open for hunting, and a shuttle service to transport bagged deer, would provide more hunting opportunities, could increase hunter satisfaction, and could encourage hunters who might not otherwise participate. Increasing the amount of area open to rifle hunting could result in user conflicts between hunters and non-hunters, but since user conflicts generally do not occur on this refuge, it is unlikely that modifying the rifle zones will have any impact on the relationship between these user groups. Requiring hunters to obtain a special use permit to hunt rabbit may result in some inconvenience for hunters, but it is necessary for gathering more information about the valley’s rabbit population.

Refuge management activities directly related to all refuge operations generate an estimated $1.93 million in local output, 18.4 jobs and $405.5 thousand in personal income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would generate total economic impacts of $2.32 million in local output, 24.6 jobs and $523.2 thousand in personal income.Hunting: Same as alternative B.

Refuge management activities directly related to all refuge operations generate an estimated $1.67 million in local output, 15.9 jobs and $352.3 thousand in personal income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would generate total economic impacts of $2.01 million in local output, 21.4 jobs and $453.6 thousand in personal income.Hunting: Same benefits as alternative B, 

however, eliminating some species from the hunt list may adversely impact hunters.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-95

Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives
Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding 

Priority Public Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for 

Historic Habitats

Socioeconomic Environment (cont.)

Impacts that would not vary by Alternative (cont.)

Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations across all alternatives represent well less than one percent of total income and total employment in the overall Tucker County and the city of Elkins economy. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the Canaan Valley communities near the refuge such as Davis, Thomas and Parsons where most of the refuge’s public use related economic activity occurs. For social impacts, there are no actions that would not vary by alternative. (cont.)Fishing: Participating in fishing events provide the benefit of connecting the community to the outdoors, which may lead to an increased appreciation of the refuge and its resources, and of the natural world in general. Fishing access is limited to places where roads or trails cross a waterway, which may limit opportunities for some visitors.

Fishing: Increased benefits compared with alternative A, because in alternative B we would officially open the refuge to fishing and actively promote fishing and provide access, more signage, and education programs. Slightly increased adverse impacts compared with alternative A from enhancing and promoting the refuge’s fishing program, which would require expenditures that could be used for other public benefits.

Fishing: Same as alternative B Fishing: Increased benefits compared 

with alternative A because this alternative provides the opportunity to fish nativeonly streams, which may appeal to some anglers and may provide high-quality fishing experiences. Slightly adverse impacts because fishing may be limited and some anglers may choose to fish elsewhere.

4-96 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives
Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding 

Priority Public Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for 

Historic Habitats

Socioeconomic Environment (cont.)

Impacts that would not vary by Alternative (cont.)

Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations across all alternatives represent well less than one percent of total income and total employment in the overall Tucker County and the city of Elkins economy. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the Canaan Valley communities near the refuge such as Davis, Thomas and Parsons where most of the refuge’s public use related economic activity occurs. For social impacts, there are no actions that would not vary by alternative. (cont.)Wildlife Observation & Photography: Continuing to offer wildlife observation and photography opportunities on 31 miles of roads and trails may lead visitors to gain a deep appreciation for refuge resources. No increase in public use opportunities may lead to deterioration of the community’s attitude towards and support for the refuge and its mission.

Wildlife Observation & Photography: Increased benefits compared with alternative A because of increased infrastructure for public use, an additional 4.8 miles of trails, and more looped trails. This may increase visitation and improve visitor satisfaction, as well as increase return visits, which may positively impact the local economy. Revegetating the edges of some ski trails to improve habitat may be seen as beneficial from an ecological preservation perspective, but harmful from a recreational perspective because it would narrow ski trails. Increasing trail connectivity by building more trails may be seen as an adverse impact by visitors who are concerned with protecting wetlands and other resources.Additional visitor amenities may take funds away from other priorities, cause additional user conflicts, or cause more disturbance to wildlife, therefore diminishing the quality of wildlife viewing for others.

Wildlife Observation & Photography:Increased benefits for recreational users compared to the other alternatives because there would be more trails miles and more trail connections, including a cross-valley trail. There would also be an off-trail use zone. The cross-valley trail may be cost-prohibitive to implement in a way that protects fragile wetland habitat. Of all of the alternatives, this alternative most increases access opportunities for mountain bikers, which may negatively impact hikers, horseback riders, and other user groups.

Wildlife Observation & Photography: Closing some refuge trails would decrease access and connectivity in comparison to alternatives B and C.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-97

Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives
Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding 

Priority Public Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for 

Historic Habitats

Socioeconomic Environment (cont.)

Impacts that would not vary by Alternative (cont.)

Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations across all alternatives represent well less than one percent of total income and total employment in the overall Tucker County and the city of Elkins economy. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the Canaan Valley communities near the refuge such as Davis, Thomas and Parsons where most of the refuge’s public use related economic activity occurs. For social impacts, there are no actions that would not vary by alternative. (cont.)Environmental Education and Interpretation:This alternative exposes a large number of people to the refuge because of the emphasis on on-site and off-site programs. This could lead to a broader understanding of and support for the refuge mission and refuge resources. Recruiting local volunteers provides the benefit of keeping the visitor center open more days per week, which allows the refuge to provide programs and information on a more frequent basis. On and off-site programs entail additional budget costs and use resources that could be available for other refuge programs. Opening the visitor center only four days a week is of concern to members of the public who believe that the center should be open on weekend days, because that is the time of highest potential visitation.Outreach & Partnerships: Beneficial impacts from using a variety of venues and forums to communicate with the public, which helps refuge staff develop relationships with a variety of individuals and groups. Minimal adverse impacts because outreach activities divert staff time and effort away from other management activities. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation:Increased beneficial impacts compared with alternative A because the refuge would provide additional interpretative trails and signs, thus increasing the quality of visitor experiences. Hiring additional staff for visitor services may also increase visitor satisfaction because of increased outreach to schools and increased opportunities to learn more about the refuge. Adverse impacts from expenses incurred from designing and maintaining additional interpretative trails and an environmental education pavilion, thus diverting resources from management activities. Also, increased use of the refuge may impact refuge resources and habitats.Outreach & Partnerships: Increased beneficial impacts compared with alternative A, because thee refuge would host an annual open house which would improve relationships with the community and provide mutual learning experiences.Adverse impacts are the same as alternative A.

Environmental Education and Interpretation:Increased beneficial impacts compared with alternative B because the refuge would open the visitor center 7 days a week year round. This would provide maximum opportunities for visitation and may increase satisfaction with refuge services. Slightly increased adverse impacts compared with alternative B because it will cost more to operate an expanded public use program, thus diverting funds from other management activities. Outreach & Partnerships: Same as 

alternative B.

Environmental Education and Interpretation:

Same as alternative B, except the closing of portions of some commercial crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing trails may mean that the refuge would not be able to offer the same level of environmental education and interpretation programming during the winter at the White Grass location.Outreach & Partnerships: Same as alternative B.

4-98 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-99

Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives

Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding 

Priority Public Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for 

Historic Habitats

Socioeconomic Environment (cont.)

Impacts that would not vary by Alternative (cont.)

Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations across all alternatives represent well less than one percent of total income and total employment in the overall Tucker County and the city of Elkins economy. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the Canaan Valley communities near the refuge such as Davis, Thomas and Parsons where most of the refuge’s public use related economic activity occurs. For social impacts, there are no actions that would not vary by alternative. (cont.)Staffing: The current staffing level of 7 full-time employees and 2 term employees allows the refuge to stay within budget and does not require budget increases. However, current staff numbers are inadequate to perform all needed refuge functions.

Staffing: Increasing staff to 12 full-time employees and one temporary employee increases the refuge’s capacity to perform its functions and contributes to local employment and local economic development. However, funding additional positions would require a larger refuge budget, and may use funds that could be used to support other refuge activities.

Staffing: Slightly increased beneficial and adverse impacts compared to alternative B from an increase of one employee. 

Staffing: Same impact as alternative B.
4-100 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives Alternative A: Current Management Alternative B: Species Focus Alternative C: Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public Uses Alternative D: Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats Upland Habitats Impacts that would not vary by Alternative Regardless of the alternative selected, we will use standard and effective habitat management techniques to conduct forest, shrubland, and grassland management activities in the refuge uplands. Whenever practicable, we will replace non-native plant species with native species to restore the ecological integrity of the refuge. Management activities would cause no major mortality or loss in local populations, because actions occur on a rotational basis, meaning no major habitat components would change completely in any one year. Continuing red spruce and balsam fir restoration would provide long-term benefits, outside the 15-year scope of this plan, to Cheat Mountain salamanders and West Virginia northern flying squirrels. Alternative A would benefit uplands through the continued management and protection of the refuge’s 10,482 acres of northern hardwood forest, conifer spruce/ mixed forest, shrublands, old fields and 

grasslands.Some risk of short-term, localized impacts on these habitats from native species replanting, prescribed burning, haying/mowing, herbicide application, hydroaxing and heavy equipment use, and other management practices. The refuge would use at a minimum all BMPs recommended by state, federal, and Non-Governmental OrganizationsThe refuge protects and manages 6,616 acres of northern hardwood forest and conifer spruce/mixed forest. Red spruce and balsam fir restoration would provide long-term benefits by increasing forested acres.The refuge protects 3,335 acres of shrubland and old fields, and actively manages 35 acres that benefit wildlife species such as migratory songbirds and American woodcock.Managing up to 531 grassland acres on a rotational basis would provide a habitat mosaic benefiting multiple wildlife and plant species and providing cover for breeding and migrating birds.

In addition to alternative A, alternative B would increase management and restoration efforts in uplands.Increasing the harvest of white-tailed deer would further benefit upland plant communities.Impacts to upland habitats and associated wildlife would increase with increased number of trails, trail miles, visitor infrastructure, and increased visitor use.Increasing conifer spruce/mixed forest habitat, reforesting logging roads, and incorporating silvicultural methods in stand management would benefit forests by improving stand health, reconnecting fragmented forest blocks, and increasing overall acreage.Conversion of forest islands and edges to early-successional habitat would benefit associated species, like American woodcock and Eastern towhee.Early-successional focal species would benefit most from actively managing 853 acres of shrubland habitat, which includes allowing succession to occur on 216 acres of grassland.

Impacts to upland habitats and associated wildlife would be greatest in alternative C with increased number of trails, trail miles, visitor infrastructure, access to an off-trail use zone, and increased visitor use.Benefits to upland forests are similar to alternative B although forest stands would not benefit from forest stand improvement measures and would be reliant on whitetailed deer harvest.The range of red spruce would continue to expand toward pre-20th century conditions 

but at a much slower rate than in the other alternatives.Impacts to shrubland habitats would be similar to alternative B.Impacts to grassland habitats would be similar to alternative B.

Alternative D would provide the greatest benefit to forested habitats through passive management to achieve latesuccessional forest characteristics.Increased flexibility in the control of whitetailed deer would be most beneficial to refuge plant communities and associated wildlife.Long-term benefits to upland forests would increase in comparison to alternative B from an increase in forested acres relating to succession of shrubland, old field, and grassland habitats.Early successional and shrubland dependant species would receive short-term benefits from succession but ultimately would be displaced as habitats continue to succeed to northern hardwood forest. Displacement may adversely affect local and regional population goals set by the BCR.Certain populations of rare plant communities and plant species, like glade spurge, would be affected by reducing extent and frequency of occurrence. A management plan to minimize affects to glade spurge populations will be developed.
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-101

Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives

Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding 

Priority Public Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for 

Historic Habitats

Upland Habitats (cont.)

Impacts that would not vary by Alternative (cont.)

Regardless of the alternative selected, we will use standard and effective habitat management techniques to conduct forest, shrubland, and grassland management activities in the 

refuge uplands. Whenever practicable, we will replace non-native plant species with native species to restore the ecological integrity of the refuge. Management activities would cause no major mortality or loss in local populations, because actions occur on a rotational basis, meaning no major habitat components would change completely in any one year. Continuing red spruce and balsam fir restoration would provide long-term benefits, outside the 15-year scope of this plan, to Cheat Mountain salamanders and West Virginia northern flying squirrels. (cont.)

The conversion of 215 grassland acres to shrubland habitat would be considered adverse to the overall objective of maintaining the grassland cover type. Impacts would be negligible because the refuge will concentrate on providing higher quality grassland habitat through reducing interior fragmentation and managing in 

≥50 

acre habitat blocks.

Alternative D would provide the least benefit to grasslands as they would not be managed and would succeed through the successional stages, eventually displacing grassland dependent wildlife species.Grassland- and area-dependent species (e.g. Henslow’s sparrows) would benefit in the short-term but would be displaced within 10 years.
4-102 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives Alternative A: Current Management Alternative B: Species Focus Alternative C: Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public Uses Alternative D: Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats Freshwater and Wetland Habitats Impacts that would not vary by Alternative Regardless of which CCP alternative we select, we would develop a Habitat Management Plan for wetland habitats, and we would mitigate any potential for major unplanned changes in vegetation by continuously monitoring our vegetation types and updating our Geographic Information System database. A trapping program in all alternatives would maintain furbearer populations at levels compatible with the habitat and with refuge objectives, and minimize beaver damage to plant communities and refuge roads and trails. Indirect impacts could result from the activity of placing traps as it could disturb or displace migratory birds utilizing wetlands for wintering or foraging habitat during seasonal migrations. Direct impacts would include the harvest of targeted species, and the potential to harvest non-targeted species. Alternative A would benefit wetlands through the continued management and protection of 5,573 acres. Rare plant communities would benefit from active habitat management such as beaver 

trapping and the harvest of white-tailed deer.Over the long-term, the risk of erosion and water quality problems would increase with increased visitor use. However, impacts are minimized because visitor use is limited to designated roads and trails.Some risk of short-term, localized impacts on these habitats from native species replanting, prescribed burning, haying/mowing, herbicide application, hydroaxing and heavy equipment use, and other management practices. The refuge would use at a minimum all BMPs recommended by state, federal, and Non-Governmental Organizations. Impacts would be minimized by conducting operations when the ground is frozen, hand carrying equipment and using chainsaws rather than using heavy equipment for planting activities whenever possible.The 347 acres of forested wetlands would receive long-term benefits from red spruce and balsam fir planting efforts by improving forested wetland habitat and increasing overall acreage.

Benefits would increase in alternative B through the remediation of impacted wetland areas, increased harvest of whitetailed deer, designating a 754-acre RNA, and the development of an ecological integrity index that would improve wetland function and monitor changes in relation to climate change and restoration activities.There would be short-term impacts from trail, environmental education pavilion, and boardwalk construction to wetlands and long-term impacts from habitat loss where trails cross wetlands. The refuge will use BMPs for construction to minimize impacts to wetlands and the Blackwater River.Benefits to forested wetlands are similar to alternative A. Skidsteer vehicles would be used to construct white-tailed deer exclosures. The refuge would limit the extent and duration of use in wetter soil types to minimize impacts, and it would use additional measures (e.g. using rubber mats) to minimize impacts. Short-term impacts would be offset by long-term benefits to red spruce and balsam fir stands by increasing seedling survival rates and stand acres.

Additional trail (Brown Mountain overlook to A-Frame Road), road (Camp 70 improvement) and infrastructure construction would increase potential for short-term localized impacts to sensitive wetlands that contain rare and sensitive plant communities. To minimize long-term impacts on the Brown Mountain Overlook to A-Frame road trail, the refuge would construct a boardwalk in areas where sensitive wetland soils and plants would be affected by foot traffic and a bridge will be placed over the Little Blackwater River where the riverbank would be susceptible to erosion.Designation of a 593-acre RNA would benefit wetlands and associated rivers and streams by preserving wetland plant communities and rare plant species.Impacts of dispersed use within the off-trail use zone would be minimized as wetlands consist of only 4% of the total area.Impacts to forested wetlands are similar to alternative B.Impacts to forested wetlands-aspen woodlands are similar to alternative B.Impacts to open water and aquatic habitats are similar to alternative B.

Benefits in alternative D are similar to alternative B.Impacts would not be as extensive as alternative B or C because some trails would be closed and visitors would be restricted to designated trails. This would benefit associated wetlands by limiting disturbance and the spread of invasive species.Benefits to forested wetlands include an increase in overall size from passive management, thus expanding a globally rare community type.Impacts to aspen woodlands are similar to alternative D.Impacts to shrub and herbaceous wetlands are similar to alternative B.Impacts to open water and aquatic habitats are similar to alternative B.
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-103

Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives

Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding 

Priority Public Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for 

Historic Habitats

Freshwater and Wetland Habitats (cont.)

Impacts that would not vary by Alternative (cont.)

Regardless of which CCP alternative we select, we would develop a Habitat Management Plan for wetland habitats, and we would mitigate any potential for major unplanned changes in vegetation by continuously monitoring our vegetation types and updating our Geographic Information System database. A trapping program in all alternatives would maintain furbearer populations at levels compatible with the habitat and with refuge objectives, and minimize beaver damage to plant communities and refuge roads and trails. Indirect impacts could result from the activity of placing traps as it could disturb or displace migratory birds utilizing wetlands for wintering or foraging habitat during seasonal migrations. Direct impacts would include the harvest of targeted species, and the potential to harvest non-targeted species. (cont.)Selective patch cuts within acres of aspen woodlands would create short and long-term benefits by improving habitat for a diversity of wildlife species and focal wildlife species.Benefits to rare plant communities and wildlife from beaver management of 685 acres and 55 stream miles outweigh decreased open water acreage that will result from beaver management activities.

Aspen stand management and establishment of demonstration sites would cause short-term negligible, localized impacts.Impacts to open water and aquatic habitats are similar to alternative A. Reforestation of riparian corridors would increase benefits to riparian wetlands by improving connectivity and increasing corridor width.Disturbance to wildlife and plant species would be minimized by protecting beaver ponds and adjacent habitats from disturbance.
4-104 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives Alternative A: Current Management Alternative B: Species Focus Alternative C: Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public Uses Alternative D: Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats Fisheries Habitats and Resources Impacts that would not vary by Alternative Regardless of which management alternative we select, the Blackwater River watershed fisheries will continue to benefit from Service protection of the part of the watershed that provides good cover, food, and breeding habitat. Prescribed burning to maintain grasslands and silvicultural practices used to restore and enhance upland forested ecosystems may cause short-term, minimal, localized increases in turbidity. Controlling invasive plants with herbicides would not affect fisheries because the herbicide we would use is not toxic to fish or invertebrates, and quickly absorbs to suspended and bottom sediments. A law enforcement presence would help prevent the illegal taking of fish, littering, or trespassing. Protecting 166 acres of streams, rivers, and open water within the Blackwater River watershed will benefit refuge fisheries watershed protection. Stocking non-native brown trout impacts 

native brook trout populations by shifting microhabitat use, altering vertical distribution, and in some cases has preceded the disappearance of native brook trout populations.Refuge visitors who boat and fish may cause localized, minor, short-term impacts by disturbing the bottom substrate in shallow areas. Discarded items such as fishing line, lures, and plastic containers present a risk for waterfowl and other birds. Brochures and signage would notify those visitors of proper precautions, including retrieving broken line and lures and carrying out all trash.

Short and long-term benefits to refuge fisheries would be expected from wetland and riparian area restoration activities.Increasing visitor use would directly impact native fish populations through increased fishing pressure and indirectly through trail degradation at river and stream crossings. Construction and restoration projects may cause localized, short-term effects to fish populations through increased soil erosion and sedimentation into refuge waterways. The refuge will adhere to BMPs to minimize any potential impacts.

Benefits from alternative C, although similar to alternative B, would lessen in the short-term from increased refuge construction projects and in the long-term from increased visitor use.

Benefits from alternative D are the same as alternative B plus:Increased benefits to native fish from limited vehicle access, decreased trail miles, decreased visitor use, and working with WVDNR to stock native fish in the Blackwater River.
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences 4-105

Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives

Alternative A:

Current Management

Alternative B:

Species Focus

Alternative C:

Emphasis on Expanding 

Priority Public Uses

Alternative D:

Focus on Managing for 

Historic Habitats

Threatened and Endangered Species

Impacts that would not vary by Alternative

In all alternatives, the refuge will continue to protect known populations of Cheat Mountain salamanders and continue to conduct surveys to locate undocumented populations. 

Cheat Mountain salamander monitoring and research, conducted by the refuge and partners, will continue to focus on better understanding their habitat limitations, ways to improve their habitat, and mitigation to further recovery efforts on the refuge and other sites where populations are known or are likely to occur. On the refuge, long-term benefits to Cheat Mountain salamander populations are expected from red spruce restoration projects designed to increase acreage and connectivity of suitable habitat where populations have been documented. Under all alternatives, the continued maintenance of commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing trails would perpetuate a narrow trail corridor through occupied salamander habitat. However, the corridor itself is not considered suitable living habitat for the salamander and it is anticipated that the presence of the corridor does not completely limit movements across this trail. The refuge will continue monitoring efforts for Indiana bats to determine foraging locations and extent of use on the refuge and conduct mist-netting surveys to verify presence of Indiana bats under all alternatives.Long-term benefits to Cheat Mountain salamander populations are expected from red spruce restoration projects by increasing acreage and connectivity of suitable habitat. Indiana bat surveys would increase knowledge of their presence and habitat use, providing long-term benefits by focusing restoration on their habitat requirements. If roosting colonies exist on the refuge, disturbance from visitor use would affect Indiana bats.

Additional benefits to Cheat Mountain salamander populations would be expected from reforestation of logging roads and edges of cross-country ski trails (Powderline and Three-Mile), and installing trail diverters. Restoration in riparian, early-successional and forested wetland habitats would benefit Indiana bats by increasing and improving foraging habitat.The refuge’s management activities are not likely to adversely affect Cheat Mountain salamanders or Indiana bats.

Benefits and impacts are similar to alternative B for Cheat Mountain salamanders.If Indiana bat maternity or roosting colonies exist within the off-trail use zone (open during hunting season), visitor disturbance could affect those colonies. The refuge will minimize impacts by increasing monitoring efforts to determine Indiana bat presence.

Alternative D would have the greatest long-term benefits to Cheat Mountain salamanders. Immediately closing and completely reforesting Powderline and Three-Mile cross-country ski trails would recreate microhabitat conditions necessary for salamander occupation.Benefits to Indiana bats would be similar to alternative B.
4-106 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary Impacts Comparison of the Alternatives Alternative A: Current Management Alternative B: Species Focus Alternative C: Emphasis on Expanding Priority Public Uses Alternative D: Focus on Managing for Historic Habitats Public Use and Access Impacts that would not vary by Alternative Regardless of alternative, we would continue to allow compatible, wildlife-oriented public uses including hunting, fishing, observing, and photographing wildlife through hiking, biking, vehicle driving and horseback riding. We would also continue to allow cross-country skiing and snowshoeing to facilitate wildlife observation and photography in the winter, when access on foot is difficult. We would continue to provide the public with wildlife interpretation and environmental education opportunities. To support public use, we would continue to maintain the refuge facilities including the refuge headquarters, visitor’s center, parking lots, observation platforms, hunt blinds, kiosks, and trails. We will evaluate public use sites and programs periodically to assess whether they are meeting the objectives, and to prevent site degradation. A refuge trail monitoring plan addresses the potential physical impacts of trail beds, including percent trail incision, exposed roots and puddles. The refuge would continue to allow compatible, wildlife oriented public uses including hunting, fishing, observing and photographing wildlife through hiking, 

biking, and horseback riding. We also allow cross-country skiing and snowshoeing to facilitate wildlife observation and photography in the winter.Adverse impacts from permitting leashed dogs to accompany visitors on refuge trails are the greatest under this alternative because there is no stipulation on leash length. 

Increased visitation and increased opportunities for consumptive and non-consumptive uses would combine to increase the risk of human-wildlife conflicts and habitat damage, minor accidents that will require law enforcement assistance, and parking issues during times of heavy use.Leash length for dogs would be 8 feet, thus minimizing the zone of disturbance from dogs who accompany visitors.

Impacts are similar to alternative B. However, the extent of impacts and disturbance to wildlife and habitats would increase from: an off-trail use zone, additional trail construction and use, and increased visitation by consumptive and non-consumptive users.Adverse impacts from permitting leashed dogs to accompany visitors on refuge trails are the same as alternative B.

Alternative D would have benefits and minimal impacts similar to alternative A.Adverse impacts from permitting leashed dogs to accompany visitors on refuge trails are the same as alternative B.
Chapter 1 Chapter 5

■ Background

■ Public Involvement Summary and Outreach

■ What Happens Next

Consultation and Coordination 

with Others

Canaan Valley refuge staff and Youth Conservation Corps working on 

Forest Road 80

Marquette Crockett/USFWS
Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination with Others 5-1

We presented in chapter 1, figure 1.1, the steps in the comprehensive 

conservation planning process and how it integrates National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) requirements including public involvement. What follows is 

the chronology of public outreach activities the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) conducted while preparing this document.

January 2006 Article in Timberdoodle Newsletter and Highland Voice.

June 2006 Article in Timberdoodle Newsletter and posted web page on 

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) process.

September 2006 Distributed the issues workbook and planning newsletter to 

 approximately 2,000 names on our mailing list, and posted 

 it online for people to complete electronically. We also sent the 

 workbook out by e-mail to our stakeholders mailing list, which 

 was developed by the refuge and United States Geological 

 Survey (USGS). 

March 2007 USGS conducted stakeholder interviews and assessments with 

 63 participants.

February 2008 Distributed the Executive Summary of USGS stakeholder 

 evaluation and presented findings to interview participants 

 at Canaan Valley State Park (2/27/09) and to the general 

 public at an open house at the Canaan Valley Fire Hall 

 (2/28/09).

February 2008 Distributed a Planning Update

February 2009 Distributed a Planning Update

October 12, 2006

Number of non-Service attendants: 6

Location: Elkins, WV

October 13, 2006

Number of non-Service attendants: 6

Location: Parsons, WV

October 14, 2006

Number of non-Service attendants: 16

Location: Thomas, WV

January 30, 2007

Number of non-Service attendants: 27

Location: Canaan Valley, WV

Background

Public Involvement 

Summary and 

Outreach

Planning Updates, Issues 

Workbook, and other 

Newsletters 

Public Scoping Meetings – 

Meeting our Refuge 

Neighbors at Open Houses

Public Involvement Summary and Outreach
5-2 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

The refuge has provided updates on the CCP process to the local community and 

other constituents through a variety of methods. Articles have been written for 

local newsletters including the Timberdoodle (Refuge Friends Group) and the 

Highlands Voice (West Virginia Highlands Conservancy). Outreach by partners 

has been completed with such groups as the National Wild Turkey Federation, 

WV Birders Listserv, NRA Institute for Legislative Action, and the Brooks Bird 

Club. News releases have preceded all public meetings and open houses. Regular 

updates on the refuge website have included new information on the CCP 

process. Flyers were also posted in local community businesses preceding all 

public meetings and open houses. Personal communications have been continuous 

at refuge public events and programs. Communication has also been delivered via 

presentations at Rotary and other community meetings.

December 7-8, 2006

Outreach activity: Planning Meeting

Purpose: Convene the core planning team for the first time

Number of non-Service attendants: 1

Audience: Core planning team

January 19, 2007

Outreach activity: Planning Meeting

Purpose: Discuss rare plant and rare community conservation and management 

strategies

Number of non-Service attendants: 6

Number of Service attendants: 6

Audience: West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (Keith Krantz, Jim 

Vanderhorst, P.J. Harmon, and Elizabeth Byers), The West Virginia Chapter of 

the Nature Conservancy (Rodney Bartgis), and West Virginia University (Jim 

Rentch)

February 20, 2007

Outreach activity: Planning Meeting

Purpose: Discuss migratory bird conservation and habitat management 

strategies

Number of non-Service attendants: 8

Number of Service attendants: 8

Audience: Canaan Valley Institute (Jim Rawson), Monongahela National Forest 

(Cathy Johnson), Northern Research Station (Jane Rodrigue and Melissa 

Thoms-Van Gundy), West Virginia University (Jim Anderson), and West Virginia 

Division of Natural Resources (Steve Wilson, Keith Krantz and Jim Evans)

May 18, 2007

Outreach activity: Planning Meeting

Purpose: Discuss deer management strategies

Number of non-Service attendants: 9

Number of Service attendants: 5

Audience: West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (Keith Krantz, Gary 

Foster, and Dick Hall), Timberline Homeowners Association (Jaineay Brasselle), 

West Virginia University (Kelley Flaherty), Canaan Valley State Park (Rob 

Gilligan), USFS Northern Research Station (Tom Schuler and Mark Ford), and 

Canaan Valley Institute (Ken Dzaack)

Updating Various 

Constituents on our 

Progress

Meetings with State 

Partners and Other 

Conservation Experts

Public Involvement Summary and Outreach
Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination with Others 5-3

July 12, 2007

Outreach activity: Planning Meeting

Purpose: Discuss visitor services outreach, education, and other public use 

strategies

Number of non-Service attendants: 18

Number of Service attendants: 6

Audience: Appalachian Forest Heritage Area (Phyllis Baxter), Trout Unlimited 

(Gary Berti), Tucker County Trails (Linda Blakeley), White Grass Ski Touring 

(Chip Chase), Canaan Valley Institute (Cindy Phillips), Guest Services- CVSP 

(David Cooper), Tucker County School Board (Bob Dunkerly), Tucker County 

Connections (Julie Dzaack), West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (Jim 

Fregonera), National Park Service (Peggy Pings), Davis and Elkins College 

(Ed Rhudy), West Virginia University (David Smaldone), Friends of the 500th 

(Marilyn Schoenfeld), Tucker County Convention and Visitors Bureau (Bill 

Smith), West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (Dave Saville), and West Virginia 

Department of Transportation (Jim Hudson)

December 10, 2007

Outreach activity: Planning Meeting

Purpose: For refuge staff to hear outcomes of the contracted feasibility study 

for a cross-valley trail and provide feedback to the contractors on the desired 

products from the study

Number of non-Service attendants: 2 VHB contractors, 2 Canaan Valley 

Institute employees (Ken Dzaack and Jenny Newland).

Audience: Refuge staff and core planning team

December 11, 2007

Outreach activity: Conference Call

Purpose: To learn the results of the USGS stakeholder evaluation conducted by 

USGS

Number of non-Service attendants: 3

Number of Service attendants: 6

Audience: Refuge and Regional Office staff, West Virginia DNR.

October 30, 2006; May 15, 2007; October 16, 2007; April 18, 2008

Outreach activity: Land Protection Partners meetings

Purpose: Update the Canaan Valley Land Protection Partners on the CCP 

process

Number of non-Service attendants: approximately 8-10 at any given meeting

Audience: Refuge and Regional Office staff and people who were interested and 

involved in protecting land in Canaan Valley

October 3, 2008

Outreach activity: Canaan Valley refuge staff and Regional Chief meet with West 

Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR) in Parkersburg

Purpose: Discuss hunting and Research Natural Area Issues with State.

Number of non-Service attendants: 3

Number of Service attendants: 2

Audience: WVDNR (Frank Jezioro, Curtis Taylor, Keith Krantz)

October 18, 2008

Outreach activity: Canaan Valley refuge staff meet with WVDNR at Ohio River 

Islands National Wildlife Refuge

Purpose: Discuss CCP update.

Number of non-Service attendants: 1

Audience: Curtis Taylor, WVDNR

Public Involvement Summary and Outreach
5-4 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

August 20, 2009

Outreach activity: Planning meeting

Purpose: To discuss the state’s comments on the preliminary draft CCP/

Environmental Assessment (EA)

Number of non-Service attendants: 3

Number of Service attendants: 5

Audience: Gary Foster, Roger Anderson and Keith Krantz, all of the WVDNR

March 26, 2008 WV Senators and State Representative

Issues Meetings

From February through March 2008, the core planning team met to discuss 

many of the issues that are listed in Chapter 1. The state representative to the 

core planning team was invited to every one of these meetings and he attended 

almost all of them. Issues discussed included hunting, trapping, Delta 13/Camp 70 

Road, off-road vehicle access, off-trail skiing at White Grass, competitive races 

on Forest Road 80, and the impacts of White Grass ski trails on Cheat Mountain 

salamanders. 

We will analyze all of the comments we receive on this draft CCP/EA during 

its 45-day public review, and revise the document as needed for our final CCP. 

During that period, we will also hold public meetings. One of the final appendixes 

will summarize those public comments and our responses to them. We will submit 

the final CCP to our regional director for review and approval.

At the same time that we publish our final CCP, if appropriate, we will publish 

its Finding of No Significant Impact, certifying that it meets agency compliance 

requirements and advances the purpose of the refuge and the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Both documents will be available to all 

interested parties. After publication we can implement the plan. 

Each year, we will evaluate our accomplishments on the refuge in accordance 

with the alternative selected in our final CCP. We may intensify refuge 

monitoring without additional NEPA compliance. Any results of our future 

monitoring that predict a new, significant impact, however, would require our 

analysis and public involvement in an additional Environmental Assessment.

Briefing Elected Officials 

and Others

What Happens Next?

What Happens Next?
Chapter 1 Chapter 6

■ Members of the Core Planning Team

■ Assistance from Other Service Personnel

List of Preparers

Black bear print

Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 6. List of Preparers 6-1

Beth Goldstein, Regional Refuge Planner, USFWS, Regional Office

Education: M.A. Regional Planning, UMass Amherst

Experience: USFWS refuge planner, 2000-present

Contribution: As planning team leader, provided guidance, 

 monitored workflow, developed project schedules, 

 coordinated activities of planning team members, and 

 ensured NEPA compliance.

Phone: 413-253-8564

Email: beth_goldstein@fws.gov

Jonathan Schafler, Refuge Manager, Canaan Valley NWR

Education: A.S. Criminal Justice, Santa Rosa Junior College 

 B.S. Natural Resources Management, Sonoma State 

 University 

 M.S. Homeland Security, Naval War College

Experience: USFWS Wildlife Refuge Manager, Canaan Valley 

 NWR

 USFWS Wildlife Refuge Manager, Prime Hook NWR

 USFWS Assistant Wildlife Refuge Manager, Crab 

 Orchard NWR

 USFWS Assistant Wildlife Refuge Manager, Kodiak 

 NWR

 National Park Service Ranger, Arizona, Puerto Rico, 

 California, Massachusetts 

Contribution: Reviewed management objectives and strategies and 

 reviewed and edited CCP

Phone: 304-866-3858

Email: jonathan_schafler@fws.gov

Ken Sturm, Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Canaan Valley NWR

Education: B.S. Wildlife Biology, University of Vermont

Experience: USFWS Refuge Biologist, 1994-present

Contribution: As a member of the core planning team, aided in 

 issues scoping, expert focal meetings and writing 

 biological and environmental parts of the CCP.

Phone: 304-866-3858

Email: ken_sturm@fws.gov

Andy Hofmann, Deputy Refuge Manager, Canaan Valley NWR

Education: B.S. Wildlife Biology, California University of 

 Pennsylvania

Experience: USFWS Deputy Project Leader 2008-present, 

 Canaan Valley NWR

 USFWS Assistant Refuge Manager 2004-2008, 

 Tennessee NWR

 USFWS Assistant Refuge Manager 2002-2004, Bon 

 Secour NWR

 USFWS Biological Technician 2000-2002, Grays 

 Lake, Ash Meadows, Prime Hook, Chincoteague, and 

 Ohio River Islands NWRs

Contribution: As a core planning team member, provided input 

 during the planning process from expert experience 

 obtained throughout a career with the Service.

Phone: 304-866-3858

Email: andy_hofmann@fws.gov

Members of the Core 

Planning Team

Members of the Core Planning Team
6-2 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Jackie Burns, Visitor Services Specialist, Canaan Valley NWR

Education: B.S. Wildlife Management, WV University

Experience: 27 years with the USFWS, including 19 years in Visitor 

 Services and 8 years in Ecological Services

Contribution: As a member of the core planning team aided in issues of 

 scoping, expert focal meetings and writing public use goals 

 and objectives. 

Phone: 304-866-3858

Email: jackie_burns@fws.gov

Lia McLaughlin, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, USFWS Pennsylvania Field 

Office

Education: B.S. Ecology, Behavior and Evolution, University of California 

at San Diego

 M.S. Zoology, University of Maine, Orono

Experience: Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 2000 - present

Contribution: Assisted in compiling and editing the CCP.

Phone: 814-234-4090

Email: lia_mclaughlin@fws.gov

Keith Krantz, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources 

Education: A.A.S. in Natural Resources Conservation, Muskingum 

 Area Technical College

 B.S. in Wildlife Management, West Virginia University

 M.S. in Biology, Eastern Kentucky University

Experience: Wildlife Biologist for West Virginia Division of Natural 

 Resources, 1999-present

Contribution: As a member of the core planning team, participated 

 in discussions of issues and helped develop management 

 alternatives. 

Phone: 304-637-0245

Email: Keithkrantz@wvdnr.gov

Randy Dettmers, Migratory Birds Division; John Eaton, cartographer; Shelley 

Small, archaeologist; Mao Lin SCEP student; Alexa Marcigliano, planning 

intern; Cynthia White, planning intern; Bill Zinni, land acquisition biologist; 

Barbara Douglas, Elkins Ecological Services Field Office; Laura Hill, Elkins 

Ecological Services Field Office; Stan Skutek, former Refuge Manager (retired), 

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge; Erin Holmes, former Deputy Refuge 

Manager, Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge; and Leah Ceperley, former 

Refuge Wildlife Biologist, Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. 

Assistance from Other 

Service Personnel

Assistance from Other Service Personnel
Chapter 1

Glossary 

(including list of acronyms)

Red admiral butterfly

USFWS

Glossary
Glossary

Glossary Glos-1

Glossary

accessibility—the state or quality of being easily approached or entered, particularly as it relates to complying 

 with the Americans With Disabilities Act.

accessible facilities—structures accessible for most people with disabilities without assistance; facilities that 

 meet UFAS standards; ADA-accessible [e.g., parking lots, trails, pathways, ramps, picnic and camping 

 areas, restrooms, boating facilities (docks, piers, gangways), fishing facilities, playgrounds, 

 amphitheaters, exhibits, audiovisual programs, and wayside sites].

aggregate—many parts considered together as a whole.

agricultural land—non-forested land (now or recently orchards, pastures, or crops).

alternative—a reasonable way to fix an identified problem or satisfy a stated need [40 CFR 1500.2] (see 

 “management alternative”).

appropriate use—a proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following three 

 conditions: 

1. the use is a wildlife-dependent one;

2. the use contributes to fulfi lling the refuge purpose(s), the System mission, or goals or objectives 

described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act was signed into law; or

3. the use has been determined appropriate as specifi ed in the policy.

approved acquisition boundary—a project boundary that the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 approves upon completion of the planning and environmental compliance process. An approved

 acquisition boundary only designates those lands which the Service has authority to acquire or manage 

 through various agreements. The approval of an acquisition boundary does not grant the Service

 jurisdiction or control over lands within the boundary, and it does not make lands within the refuge 

 boundary part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Lands do not become part of the System until 

 the Service buys them or they are placed under an agreement that provides for their management as 

 part of the System.

aquatic—growing in, living in, or dependent upon water.

area of biological significance—see “special focus area.”

best management practices—land management practices that produce desired results. [n.b. Usually 

 describing forestry or agricultural practices effective in reducing non point source pollution, like 

 reseeding skidder trails or not storing manure in a flood plain. In their broader sense, practices that 

 benefit target species.]

biological diversity or biodiversity—the variety of life and its processes and includes the variety of living 

 organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they 

 occur.

biological integrity—biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, and community levels 

 comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape genomes, 

 organisms and communities.

breeding habitat—habitat used by migratory birds or other animals during the breeding season.
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Glossary

Glos-2

categorical exclusion (CE, CX, CATEX, CATX)—pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 

 (NEPA), a category of Federal agency actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

 significant effect on the human environment [40 CFR 1508.4].

CFR -- the Code of Federal Regulations.

community—an assemblage of plants occurring together at any point in time.

community type—a particular assemblage of plants and animals, named for its dominant characteristic.

compatible use—“The term ‘compatible use’ means a wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of 

 a refuge that, in the sound professional judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with or 

 detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge.”—National 

 Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 [Public Law 105-57; 111 Stat. 1253]

compatibility determination—a required determination for wildlife-dependent recreational uses or any other 

 public uses of a refuge.

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)—mandated by the Improvement Act, a document that provides

 a description of the desired future conditions and long-range guidance for the project leader to 

 accomplish purposes of the refuge system and the refuge. CCPs establish management direction to 

 achieve refuge purposes [P.L. 105-57; FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4].

concern—see “issue.”

conservation—managing natural resources to prevent loss or waste. [n.b. Management actions may include 

 preservation, restoration, and enhancement.]

conservation easement—a legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust (e.g., a private, nonprofit 

 conservation organization) or government agency that permanently limits the uses of a property to 

 protect its conservation values.

cool-season grass—introduced grass for crop and pastureland that grows in spring and fall and is dormant 

 during hot summer months.

cooperative agreement—a usually long-term habitat protection action, which can be modified by either party, 

 in which no property rights are acquired. Lands under a cooperative agreement do not necessarily 

 become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

critical habitat—according to U.S. Federal law, the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened 

 species depend.

cultural resources—archaeological sites, historic structures, and historic landscapes

cultural resource overview—a comprehensive document prepared for a field office that discusses, among 

 other things, project prehistory and cultural history, the nature and extent of known cultural 

 resources, previous research, management objectives, resource management conflicts or issues, and 

 a general statement of how program objectives should be met and conflicts resolved. [An overview 

 should reference or incorporate information from a field office’s background or literature search 

 described in section VIII of the Cultural Resource Management Handbook (cf. FWS Manual 614 FW 

 1.7).]

database—a collection of data arranged for ease and speed of analysis and retrieval, usually computerized.

degradation—the loss of native species and processes due to human activities such that only certain

 components of the original biodiversity persist, often including significantly altered natural 

 communities.
Glossary

Glossary Glos-3

designated wilderness area—an area designated by Congress as part of the National Wilderness Preservation 

 System [FWS Manual 610 FW 1.5 9draft)]

digitizing—the process of converting maps into geographically referenced electronic files for a geographic 

 information system (GIS).

disturbance—any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem, community, or population 

 structure and changes resources, substrate availability, or the physical environment.

donation—a citizen or group may wish to give land or interests in land to the Service for the benefit of wildlife. 

 Aside from the cost factor, these acquisitions are no different than any other means of land acquisition. 

 Gifts and donations have the same planning requirements as purchases.

easement—an agreement by which landowners give up or sell one of the rights on their property (e.g., 

 landowners may donate rights-of-way across their properties to allow community members access to a 

 river). See “conservation easement.”

ecological processes—a complex mix of interactions among animals, plants, and their environment that 

 ensures maintenance of an ecosystem’s full range of biodiversity. Examples include population and 

 predator-prey dynamics, pollination and seed dispersal, nutrient cycling, migration, and dispersal.

ecoregion—a territory defined by a combination of biological, social, and geographic criteria, rather than 

 geopolitical considerations; generally, a system of related, interconnected ecosystems.

ecosystem—a natural community of organisms interacting with its physical environment, regarded as a unit.

ecotourism—visits to an area that maintains and preserves natural resources as a basis for promoting its 

 economic growth and development.

emergent wetland—wetlands dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous plants.

endangered species—a Federally or State-listed protected species in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

 significant portion of its range.

environmental education—curriculum-based education aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable 

 about the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to help solve those 

 problems, and motivated to work toward solving them.

environmental health—the composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, air, and other abiotic 

 features comparable with historic conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the 

 environment.

Environmental Assessment (EA)—a public document that discusses the purpose and need for an action, 

 its alternatives, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of its impacts to determine whether to 

 prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact (q.v.) [cf. 40 CFR 

 1508.9].

exemplary community type—an outstanding example of a particular community type.

extirpated—status of a species or population that has completely vanished from a given area but that continues 

 to exist in some other location.

exotic species—a species that is not native to an area and has been introduced intentionally or unintentionally 

 by humans; not all exotics become successfully established.

Federal land—public land owned by the Federal Government, including national forests, national parks, and 

 national wildlife refuges.
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Glossary

Glos-4

Federally listed species—a species listed either as endangered or threatenedunder the Endangered Species 

 Act of 1973, as amended.

fee-title acquisition—the acquisition of most or all of the rights to a tract of land; a total transfer of property 

 rights with the formal conveyance of a title. While a fee-title acquisition involves most rights to a 

 property, certain rights may be reserved or not purchased, including water rights, mineral rights, 

 or use reservation (e.g., the ability to continue using the land for a specified time period, such as the 

 remainder of the owner’s life).

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)—supported by an environmental assessment, a document that 

 briefly presents why a Federal action will have no significant effect on the human environment, and for 

 which an environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared [40 CFR 1508.13].

fire regime—the characteristic frequency, intensity, and spatial distribution of natural fires within a given 

 ecoregion or habitat.

floodplain—flat or nearly flat land that may be submerged by floodwaters; a plain built up or in the process of 

 being built up by stream deposition.

focus areas—see “special focus areas.”

forested land—land dominated by trees. For impacts analysis in CCP’s, we assume all forested land has the 

 potential for occasional harvesting; we assume forested land owned by timber companies is harvested 

 on a more intensive, regular schedule.

forested wetlands—wetlands dominated by trees.

fragmentation—the disruption of extensive habitats into isolated and small patches. Fragmentation has two 

 negative components for biota: the loss of total habitat area; and, the creation of smaller, more isolated 

 patches of habitat remaining.

geographic information system (GIS)—a computerized system to compile, store, analyze, and display

 geographically referenced information (e.g., GIS can overlay multiple sets of information on the 

 distribution of a variety of biological and physical features).

grassland—a habitat type with landscapes dominated by grasses and with bio-diversity characterized by 

 species with wide distributions, communities being relatively resilient to short-term disturbances but 

 not to prolonged, intensive burning or grazing. In such systems, larger vertebrates, birds, and 

 invertebrates display extensive movement to track seasonal or patchy resources.

groundwater—water in the ground that is in the zone of saturation, from which wells and springs and 

 groundwater runoff are supplied.

habitat fragmentation—the breaking up of a specific habitat into isolated and small patches. [n.b. A habitat 

 area that is too small may not provide enough space to maintain a breeding population of the species in 

 question.]

habitat conservation—protecting an animal or plant habitat to ensure that the use of that habitat by the 

 animal or plant is not altered or reduced.

habitat—the place where a particular type of plant or animal lives. [n.b. An organism’s habitat must provide all 

 of the basic requirements for life, and should be free of harmful contaminants.]

historic conditions—the composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems resulting from natural 

 processes that we believe, based on sound professional judgment, were present prior to substantial 

 human-related changes to the landscape.
Glossary

Glossary Glos-5

hydrologic or flow regime—characteristic fluctuations in river flows.

hydrology—the science of waters of the earth: their occurrences, distributions, and circulations; their physical 

 and chemical properties; and their reactions with the environment, including living beings.

impoundment—a body of water, such as a pond, confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other barrier, which is 

 used to collect and store water for future use.

indigenous—native to an area.

interpretive facilities—structures that provide information about an event, place, or thing by a variety of 

 means, including printed, audiovisual, or multimedia materials (e.g., kiosks that offer printed materials 

 and audiovisuals, signs, and trail heads).

interpretive materials—any tool used to provide or clarify information, explain events or things, or

 increase awareness and understanding of the events or things (e.g., printed materials like brochures, 

 maps or curriculum materials; audio/visual materials like video and audio tapes, films, or slides; and, 

 interactive multimedia materials, CD ROM or other computer technology).

invasive species—a non-indigenous species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or 

 environmental harm or harm to human health.

invertebrate—any animal lacking a backbone or bony segment that encloses the central nerve cord.

issue—any unsettled matter that requires a management decision (e.g., a Service initiative, an opportunity, a 

 management problem, a threat to the resources of the unit, a conflict in uses, a public concern, or the 

 presence of an undesirable resource condition). [n.b. A CCP should document, describe, and analyze 

 issues even if they cannot be resolved during the planning process (FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4).]

Land Protection Plan (LPP)—a document that identifies and prioritizes lands for potential Service 

 acquisition from a willing seller, and describes other methods of providing protection. Landowners 

 within project boundaries will find this document, which is released with environmental assessments, 

 most useful.

land trusts—organizations dedicated to conserving land by purchase, donation, or conservation easement from 

 landowners.

landscape—an aggregate of landforms, together with its biological communities.

management alternative—a set of objectives and the strategies needed to accomplish each objective [FWS 

 Manual 602 FW 1.4.].

management concern—see “issue” and “migratory nongame birds of management concern.”

management opportunity—see “issue.”

management plan—a plan that guides future land management practices on a tract. [N.b. In the context of 

 an environmental impact statement, management plans may be designed to produce additional wildlife 

 habitat along with primary products like timber or agricultural crops (see “cooperative agreement”).]

management strategy—a general approach to meeting unit objectives. [N.b. A strategy may be broad, or it 

 may be detailed enough to guide implementation through specific actions, tasks, and projects (FWS 

 Manual 602 FW 1.4).]

mesic soil—sandy-to-clay loams containing moisture-retentive organic matter, well-drained (no standing 

 water).
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Glossary

Glos-6

mission statement—a succinct statement of the purpose for which the unit was established; its reason for 

 being.

mitigation—actions to compensate for the negative effects of a particular project (e.g., wetland mitigation 

 usually restores or enhances a previously damaged wetland or creates a new wetland).

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)—42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. requires all Federal agencies 

 to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental information, and 

 use public participation in planning and implementing environmental actions. Federal agencies must 

 integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to 

 facilitate better environmental decision-making (cf. 40 CFR 1500).

National Wildlife Refuge System (System)—all lands and waters and interests therein administered by

 the Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl production 

 areas, and other areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife, including those that are 

 threatened with extinction.

native—a species that, other than as a result of an introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in a 

 particular ecosystem.

native plant—a plant that has grown in the region since the last glaciation, and occurred before European 

 settlement.

natural disturbance event—any natural event that significantly alters the structure, composition, or dynamics 

 of a natural community (e.g., floods, fires, and storms).

non-consumptive, wildlife-oriented recreation—wildlife observation and photography and environmental 

 education and interpretation (see “wildlife-oriented recreation”).

non-native species—see “exotic species.”

non point source pollution—a diffuse form of water quality degradation in which wastes are not released 

 at one specific, identifiable point but from diffuse sources or a number of points or that are spread out 

 and difficult to identify and control.

non-forested wetlands—wetlands dominated by shrubs or emergent vegetation.

Notice of Intent (NOI)— an announcement we publish in the Federal Register that we will prepare and review 

 an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment [40 CFR 1508.22].

Notice of Availability (NOA)— an announcement we publish in the Federal Register that we have prepared 

 an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment and that it is available for public 

 review and comment.

objective—see “unit objective.”

old fields—areas formerly cultivated or grazed, where woody vegetation has begun to invade. [N.b. If left 

 undisturbed, old fields will eventually succeed into forest. Many occur at sites marginally suitable 

 for crops or pasture. They vary markedly in the Northeast, depending on soil and land use and 

 management history.]

outdoor education—educational activities that take place in an outdoor setting.

partnership—a contract or agreement among two or more individuals, groups of individuals, organizations, or 

 agencies, in which each agrees to furnish a part of the capital or some service in kind (e.g., labor) for a 

 mutually beneficial enterprise.
Glossary

Glossary Glos-7

payment in lieu of taxes—cf. Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, Chapter One, Legal Context.

point source—a source of pollution that involves discharge of waste from an identifiable point, such as a 

 smokestack or sewage-treatment plant outfall pipe.

population monitoring—assessing the characteristics of populations to ascertain their status and establish 

 trends on their abundance, condition, distribution, or other characteristics.

prescribed fire—the application of fire to wildland fuels, either by natural or intentional ignition, to achieve 

 identified land use objectives [FWS Manual 621 FW 1.7].

priority public use—a compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, 

 wildlife observation or photography, or environmental education or interpretation.

private land—land owned by a private individual or group or non-government organization.

private landowner—see “private land.”

private organization—any non-government organization.

protection—mechanisms like fee title acquisition, conservation easements, or binding agreements with

 landowners that ensure land use and land management practices will remain compatible with 

 maintaining species populations at a site.

public—individuals, organizations, and non-government groups; officials of Federal, State, and local 

 government agencies; Native American tribes, and foreign nations—includes anyone outside the core 

 planning team, those who may or may not have indicated an interest in the issues, and those who do or 

 do not realize that our decisions may affect them.

public involvement—offering an opportunity to interested individuals and organizations whom our actions or 

 policies may affect to become informed; soliciting their individual opinions. We thoroughly study public 

 input, and give it thoughtful consideration in shaping decisions about managing refuges.

public land—land owned by the local, State, or Federal Government.

rare species—species identified for special management emphasis because of their uncommon occurrence 

 within a watershed.

rare community types—plant community types classified as rare by any State program; includes exemplary 

 community types.

refuge goals—According to “Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook,” refuge goals 

 are “...descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statements of desired future conditions that convey a 

 purpose but do not define measurable units.”—

refuge purposes—According to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, “The terms 

 ‘purposes of the refuge’ and ‘purposes of each refuge’ mean the purposes specified in or derived from 

 the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or 

 administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge 

 subunit.”

refuge lands—lands in which the Service holds full interest in fee title or partial interest like an easement.

restoration—management of a disturbed or degraded habitat that results in the recovery of its original state 

 (e.g., restoration may involve planting native grasses and forbs, removing shrubs, prescribed burning, 

 or reestablishing habitat for native plants and animals on degraded grassland).
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Glossary

Glos-8

riparian—referring to the interface between freshwater habitats and the terrestrial landscape.

riparian habitat—habitat along the banks of a stream or river (see note above).

riverine—within the active channel of a river or stream.

riverine wetlands—generally, all the wetlands and deepwater habitats occurring within a freshwater river 

 channel not dominated by trees, shrubs, or persistent emergents.

runoff—water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural or landscape irrigation that flows over a land surface 

 into a water body (see “urban runoff”).

Service presence—Service programs and facilities that it directs or shares with other organizations; public 

 awareness of the Service as a sole or cooperative provider of programs and facilities

shrublands—habitats dominated by various species of shrubs, often with many grasses and forbs.

species of concern—species not Federally listed as threatened or endangered, but about which we or our 

 partners are concerned.

species diversity—usually synonymous with “species richness,” but may also include the proportional 

 distribution of species.

species richness—a simple measure of species diversity calculated as the total number of species in a habitat 

 or community.

State agencies—natural resource agencies of State governments

State land—State-owned public land

State-listed species—see “Federal-listed species.”

step-down management plan—a plan for dealing with specific refuge management subjects, strategies, and 

 schedules, e.g., cropland, wilderness, and fire [FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4.].

strategy—a specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and techniques for meeting unit 

 objectives.

succession—the natural, sequential change of species composition of a community in a given area.

surface water—all waters whose surface is naturally exposed to the atmosphere, or wells or other collectors 

 directly influenced by surface water.

sustainable development—the attempts to meet economic objectives in ways that do not degrade the 

 underlying environmental support system. Note that there is considerable debate over the meaning 

 of this term...we define it as “human activities conducted in a manner that respects the intrinsic value 

 of the natural world, the role of the natural world in human well-being, and the need for humans to live 

 on the income from nature’s capital rather than the capital itself.”

terrestrial—living on land.

threatened species—a Federally listed, protected species that is likely to become an endangered species in the 

 foreseeable future over all or a significant portion of its range.

tributary—a stream or river that flows into a larger stream, river, or lake, feeding it water.
Glossary

Glossary Glos-9

trust resource—a resource that the Government holds in trust for the people through law or administrative 

 act. 

 [N.b. A federal trust resource is one for which responsibility is given wholly or in part to the Federal 

 Government by law or administrative act. Generally, federal trust resources are nationally or

 internationally important no matter where they occur, like endangered species or migratory birds 

 and fish that regularly move across state lines. They also include cultural resources protected by 

 Federal historic preservation laws, and nationally important or threatened habitats, notably wetlands, 

 navigable waters, and public lands like s national wildlife refuges.]

unfragmented habitat—large, unbroken blocks of a particular type of habitat.

upland—dry ground (i.e., other than wetlands).

upland meadow or pasture—upland pastures are areas maintained in grass for livestock grazing; upland 

 meadows are hay production areas. [N.b. Meadows may occur naturally in tidal marshes and inland 

 flooded river valleys or, more frequently, at upland sites where vegetation has been cleared and grasses 

 planted. Eventually, meadows will revert to old fields and forest if they are not mowed, grazed, or 

 burned. Grasses in both managed meadows and pastures usually are similar, but pasture herbs often 

 differ because of selective grazing.]

urban runoff—water from rain, melted snow, or landscape irrigation flowing from city streets and domestic or 

 commercial properties that may carry pollutants into a sewer system or water body

vernal pool—depressions holding water for a temporary period in the spring, and in which various amphibians 

 lay eggs.

vision statement—a concise statement of what the refuge could achieve in the next 10 to 15 years.

watershed—the geographic area within which water drains into a particular river, stream, or body of water. A 

 watershed includes both the land and the body of water into which the land drains.

wetlands—lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or 

 near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. These areas are inundated or saturated by 

 surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of 

 vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. 

wilderness study areas—lands and waters identified by inventory as meeting the definition of wilderness and 

 being evaluated for a recommendation they be included in the Wilderness 

wilderness—see “designated wilderness area.”

wildfire—a free-burning fire requiring a suppression response; all fire other than prescribed fire that occurs 

 on wildlands [FWS Manual 621 FW 1.7].

wildlife-dependent recreational use—a use of a national wildlife refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

 observation or photography, or environmental education or interpretation (National Wildlife Refuge 

 System Administration Act of 1966).

wildlife management—manipulating wildlife populations, either directly by regulating the numbers, ages, and 

 sex ratios harvested, or indirectly by providing favorable habitat conditions and alleviating limiting 

 factors.

wildlife-oriented recreation—recreational activities in which wildlife is the focus of the experience. According 

 to the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, “The terms ‘wildlife-dependent recreation’ 

 and ‘wildlife-dependent recreational use’ mean a use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

 observation or photography, or environmental education or interpretation.”
Glos-10 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Acronyms

Acronym Full Name

ACJV Atlantic Coast Joint Venture

ADA American Disabilities Act

AHMP Annual Habitat Management Plan

AMJV Appalachian Mountain Joint Venture

ARPA Archaeological Resource Protection Act

AT Appalachian Trail

ATV All-terrain Vehicle

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern

BCR Bird Conservation Region

BMP Best Management Practice

BRNA Blackwater Research Natural Area

CAP Contaminants Assessment Protocol

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan

CD Compatibility Determination

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CFRNA Central Fen Research Natural Area

CMS Cheat Mountain salamander

CVNWR Canaan Valley Natural Resource Refuge

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy

CWD Chronic Wasting Disease

DEP Department of Environmental Protection

DNR Division of Natural Resources

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ENSP Endangered and Nongame Species Program

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FHWAR Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation

FmHA Farmers Home Administration

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FR Forest Road

FTE Full-time Employee

FY Fiscal Year

GIS Geographic Information System

Acronyms
Glossary Glos-11

Acronym Full Name

HMP Habitat Management Plan

HSIMP Habitat and Species Inventory and Monitoring Plan

IAFWA International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

MBCF Migratory Bird Conservation Fund

MOU Memorandum of Understand

NABCI North American Bird Conservation Initiative

NAWCA North American Wetlands Conservation Act

NAWMP North American Waterfowl Management Plan

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NNL National Natural Landmark

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory

NWPS National Wilderness Preservation System

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System

NWSR National Wild and Scenic River

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic River System

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ORV Off-road Vehicle

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PIF Partners in Flight

REAP Rehabilitation Environmental Action Plan

Refuge Improvement Act National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

Refuge System National Wildlife Refuge System

RNA Research Natural Area

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System

Acronyms
Glos-12 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Acronym Full Name

ROW Right-of-way

SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance Management System

SHC Strategic Habitat Conservation

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

STEP Student Temporary Employment Program

SUP Special Use Permit

TCHHEP Tucker County Highlands History and Education Project

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TNC The Nature Conservancy

TPL Trust for Public Land

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDOI United States Department of Interior

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USFS United States Forest Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VHB Vanesse Hangen Brustlin Inc.

VS Visitor Services

WAP Wildlife Action Plan

WCU Wildlife Control unit

WIA Wilderness Inventory Area

WV West Virginia

WVCAP West Virginia Conservation Action Plan

WVDEP West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

WVNFS West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel

WVDNR West Virginia Division of Natural Resources

WVDOT West Virginia Department of Transportation

WVFO West Virginia Field Office

WSA Wilderness Study Area

YCC Youth Conservation Corps

Acronyms
Chapter 1

Bibliography

Canaan Valley Headquarters

Marquette Crockett/USFWS

Bibliography
Bibliography

Bibliography Bibl-1

Bibliography

Allen, T. J. 1997. The butterflies of West Virginia and their caterpillars, University of Pittsburgh Press.

Alverson, W. S. and D. M. Waller. 1997. Deer populations and the widespread failure of hemlock regeneration in 

 northern forests. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press.

American Bird Conservancy. 2003. Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area 12: 

 The Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Valley. Version 1.0. 50 pp. [Online] http://www.partnersinflight.org/bcps/ 

 plan/pl_12_10.pdf

Anderson, M. 1999. Viability and spatial assessment of ecological communities in the Northern Appalachian 

 ecoregion, University of New Hampshire Durham, NH

Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV). 1988. North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Atlantic Coast Joint 

 Venture Implementation Plan.

__. 2004. Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Strategic Plan July 2004. 26pp plus appendices. 

http://www.acjv.org/documents/acjv_strategic_plan.pdf

Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture(AMJV). 2007. Vision and Mission. Accessed at 

http://www.amjv.org/aboutamjv/vision.htm .

Arrese, P. 1987. Age, intrusion pressure and defense against floaters by territorial male Song Sparrows. 

 Animal Behavior 35:773–784.

Audobon 2009. Birds and climate change: Ecological disruption in motion. New York, New York. 15pp.

Augustine, D. J. and L. E. Frelich. 1998. Effects of white-tailed deer on populations of an understory forb in 

 fragmented deciduous forests. Conservation Biology 12(5): 995-1004.

Bailey, R.G., P. E. Avers, T. King, W.H. McNab (eds). 1994. Ecoregions and subregions of the United States 

(map). Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. Scale 1:7,500,000. Colored. Accompanied by a 

 supplementary table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by McNab, W.H. and Bailey, R.G. 

 Prepared for the USDA Forest Service. 

Banks, P. B. and J. V. Bryant. 2007. Four legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from natural 

 areas. Biology Letters 3:611-613.

Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, W.D. Pitts, F.S. Gillium, M.K. Schwartz. 1999. Terrestrial Plant Ecology, Third 

 Edition. Pp. 446–447. Benjamin Cummings, an imprint of Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. 

Bartgis, R. and A. Berdine. 1991. A preliminary assessment of biological resources in the Canaan Valley of 

 West Virginia. Boston, MA, The Nature Conservancy.

Beale, C. M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? Journal of 

 Applied Ecology 41:335-343.

Bell, S. 2002. National Resource Conservation Service. Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 4pp.

Bell, R. K. 2006. Allegheny Fort Migration Observatory: Fall Migration Grant County, West Virginia, Brooks 

 Bird Club: 4 pp.

Bennett, K. and E. Zuelke. 1999. The Effects of Recreation on Birds: A Literature Review. Unpublished report. 

 Submitted to: DE Division of Parks and Recreation, DNREC.

Bibliography
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Bibliography

Bibl-2

Betts, M. G., G. J. Forbes, A. W. Diamond, and P. D. Taylor. 2006. Independent effects of fragmentation on 

 forest songbirds: an organism based approach. Ecological Applications 16(3): 1076-1089.

Boggess, E. K., G. R. Batcheller, R. G. Linscombe, J. W. Greer, M. Novak, S. B. Linhart, D. W. Erickson, A. 

 W. Todd, D. C. Juve, and D. A. Wade. 1990. Traps, trapping, and furbearer management. Wildlife 

 Society Technical Review 90-1, The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Bonner, J. L. 2005. The Influence of Beaver Impoundments on Vegetative Composition and Modeling Habitat 

 Suitability as a Tool for Wildlife Management and Conservation. Morgantown, WV, West Virginia 

 University: 119 pp.

Bonner, J. L., J. T. Anderson, J. S. Rentch, and W. N. Grafton. 2009. Vegetative composition and community 

 structure associated with beaver ponds in Canaan Valley, West Virginia. Wetlands Ecology and 

 Management (online): 12 pp. http://www.springerlink.com/content/34p7x3661783k7g2/

Bradshaw, C.R. 2010. Impact of snakes on Cheat Mountain Salamanders due to forest fragmentation. 

 Progress Report to Canaan Valley NWR. Marshall University, Huntington, WV.

Brooks, A. B. 1911. Forestry and wood industries. Morgantown, WV, Acme Publishing Co.

Brooks, R. T. 2003. Abundance, distribution, trends, and ownership patterns of early-successional forests in the 

 northeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 185: 65-74.

Brooks, S. “Canaan Valley Temps” Email to Ken Sturm, 23 March 2010. 

Buckelew, A. R. and G. A. Hall. 1994. The West Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas. Pittsburgh, PA, University of 

 Pittsburgh Press.

Burger, J. 1981. Effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biol. Conserv. 21:231–241.

__. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United States. 

 Biological Conservation 13:123–130.

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1981. Discrimination of the threat of direct versus tangential approach to the nest 

 by incubating herring and great black-backed gulls. Journal of Comparative Physiological Psychology 

 95:676–684.

__. 1998. Effects of ecotourists on bird behaviour at Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. 

 Environmental Conservation 25:13–21.

Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, and L. J. Niles. 1995. Ecotourism and birds in coastal New Jersey: Contrasting 

 responses of birds, tourists, and managers. Environmental Conservation 22:56-65.

Butler, C. J. 2003. The disproportionate effect of global warming on the arrival dates of short-distance 

 migratory birds in North America. Ibis 145: 484-495.

Butler, L. 1981. Evaluation of Freeland Run, Canaan Valley, Tucker County. West Virginia University, 

 Morgantown, WV: 3 pp.

__. 1987. Evaluation of Freeland Run, Canaan Valley, Tucker County. West Virginia University, Morgantown, 

 WV: 3 pp.

__. 1988. Evaluation of Freeland Run, Canaan Valley, Tucker County. West Virginia University, Morgantown, 

 WV: 3 pp.

__. 1988. Memorandum for the Evaluation of Freeland Run, Canaan Valley, Tucker County. Morgantown, WV, 

 West Virginia University: 9 pp.
Bibliography

Bibliography Bibl-3

Byers, E. A., J. P. Vanderhorst, and B. P. Streets. 2007. Classification and Conservation Assessment of High 

 Elevation Wetland Communities in the Allegheny Mountains of West Virginia. Elkins, WV, West 

 Virginia Natural Heritage Program, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources: 191.

Carey, A. B. 2000. Effects of new forest management strategies on squirrel populations. Ecological 

 Applications. 10(1): 248-257.

__. 2006. Active and passive forest management for multiple values. Northwestern Naturalist 87: 18-30.

Carey, A. B. and M. L. Johnson. 1995. Small mammals in managed, naturally young, and old-growth forests. 

 Ecological Applications 5:336-352.

Carey, A. B. and S. M. Wilson 2001. Induced spatial heterogeneity in forest canopies: Responses of small 

 mammals. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65(4): 1014-1027.

Carson, W. P., J. A. Banta, A. A. Royo, and C. Kirschbaum. 2005. Plant communities growing on boulders in 

 the Allegheny National Forest: evidence for communities growing on boulders as refugia from deer and 

 as a bioassay of overbrowsing. Natural Areas Journal 25: 10-18. 

Carvell, K. L. 2002. An ecological history of Canaan Valley. In Canaan Valley and its Environs: A Landscape 

 Heritage Celebration. Canaan Valley Institute, Davis, West Virginia.

Carver, Erin, and James Caudill. 2007. Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities 

 of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

 Economics.

Cessford, G. 1995. Off-road impacts of mountain bikes: A review and discussion. Department of Conservation 

 Publication, Wellington, New Zealand. 21pp.

Chambers, D. B., J. B. Wiley, and M. D. Kozar. 2002. Overview of Hydrologic and Geologic Investigations 

 Conducted in Canaan Valley, West Virginia. In Canaan Valley and its Environs: A Landscape 

 Heritage Celebration. Canaan Valley Institute, Davis, West Virginia. http://www.canaanvi.org/ 

 canaanvi_web/uploadedFiles/Events/Past_Events/chambers_paper.pdf.

Chandler, C. C. 2007. Habitat use and survival of neotropical migrant songbirds during the post-fledging 

 period in the White Mountain National Forest Wildlife and Fisheries Conservation. Amherst, MA, 

 University of Massachusetts Master of Science: 105 pp.

Chase, C. 2010. Personal Communication with Chip Chase, White Grass Ski Center, Canaan Valley, WV. 24 

 March 2010.

Cincotta, D. A., D. P. Wegman, T. E. Oldham, S. A. Welsh and L. B. Hedrick. 2002. Fishes of the 

 Blackwater river drainage, Tucker County, WV. In Canaan Valley and its Environs: A Landscape

 Heritage Celebration. Canaan Valley Institute, Davis, West Virginia. 

 http://www.canaanvi.org/canaanvi_web/uploadedFiles/Events/Past_Events/Cincotta%20Poster%20 

 Paper.pdf

City of Elkins, West Virginia. 2008. < http://www.cityofelkinswv.com/index.html>

Cole, D. N. 1983. Campsite conditions in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, Montana. U.S. Department of 

 Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper 

 INT-312. Ogden, UT.

Cooper, T. R., and K. Parker. 2009. American woodcock population status, 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

 Laurel, Maryland. 18 pp.
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Bibliography

Bibl-4

Côté, S. D., T. P. Rooney, J. P. Tremblay, C. Dussault, and D. M. Waller. 2004. Ecological impacts of deer 

 overabundance. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35: 113-147.

Dale VH, et al. 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances. BioScience 51:723–734.

Darst, P. 2008. Bang for the Buck. The State Journal. 

 http://www.statejournal.com/story.cmf?func=viewstory&storyid=47206

Davidson, R. L. and R. E. Acciavatti. 1999. Study of Carabid Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) Associated with 

 Wetland Habitats of the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Carnegie Museum of Natural 

 History, 4400 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15213.

Davies-Colley, R. J., G. W. Payne, and M. van Elswijk. 2000. Microclimate gradients across a forest edge. New 

 Zealand Journal of Ecology 24(2): 111-121.

Dawson, Deanna. 2007. Personal communication with Deanna Dawson, USGS Patuxent, MD. November 2, 

 2007.

Dean Runyan Associates. 2005. Economic Impact of Travel on West Virginia; 2000-2004 Detailed State 

 and County Estimates. Report prepared for the West Virginia Division of Tourism, South Charleston, 

 West Virginia. June 2005.

__. 2007. Economic Impact of Travel on West Virginia. Report prepared for the West Virginia Division of 

 Tourism. South Charleston, West Virginia. http://www.deanrunyan.com/wv06.pdf

Debano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P.F. Folliott. 1998. Chapter 4, Soil Resource in Fire Effects on Ecosystems. 

 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 

deCalesta, D. S. 1994. Deer and diversity in Allegheny hardwood forests: managing an unlikely challenge. 

 Landscape and Urban Planning 28: 47-53.

__. 1994. Effect of white-tailed deer on songbirds within managed forests in Pennsylvania. Journal of Wildlife 

 Management 58(4): 711-718.

DeGraaf, R. M., W. M. Healy, and R. T. Brooks. 1991. Effects of thinning and deer browsing on breeding birds 

 in New England oak woodlands. Forest Ecology and Management 41: 179-191.

DeGraaf, R. M, J. B. Hestbeck, and M. Yamasaki. 1998. Associations between breeding bird abundance and 

 stand structure in the White Mountains, New Hampshire and Maine, USA. Forest Ecology and 

 Management 103: 217-233. 

DeGraaf, R. M, and M. Yamasaki. 2003. Options for managing early-successional forest and shrubland bird 

 habitats in the northeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 185: 179-191.

DeGraaf, R. M, M. Yamasaki, W. B. Leak, and J. W. Lanier. 1992. New England Wildlife: Management of 

 Forested Habitats. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

 Station.

Deluca, T. H., W. A. Patterson, W. A .Freimund, and D. N. Cole. 1998. Influence of llamas, horses and hikers 

 on soil erosion from established recreation trails in western Montana, USA. Environmental 

 Management. 22(2):255-262.

Denmon, P. 1998. Early Successional Habitat Use by Nongame Wildlife Species in American Woodcock 

 Breeding Habitat in West Virginia. Division of Forestry. Morgantown, West Virginia University. M.S.: 

 120 pp.
Bibliography

Bibliography Bibl-5

Dessecker, D. R. and D. G. McAuley. 2001. Importance of early successional habitat to ruffed grouse and 

 American woodcock. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2): 456-465.

DeWald, L. and M. A. Wilzbach. 1992. Interactions between native brook trout and hatchery brown trout: 

 Effects on habitat use, feeding, and growth. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:287- 

 296.

Dourson, D. 2009. Report on Statewide Land Snail Atlas for West Virginia - Canaan Valley.

Dunn, P. O. and D. W. Winkler. 1999. Climate change has affected the breeding date of tree swallows 

 throughout North America. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B 266: 2487-2490.

Dwyer, T. J., D. G. McAuley, and E. L. Derleth. 1983. Woodcock singing-ground counts and habitat changes in 

 the northeastern United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 47(3): 772-779. 

Dyck, R. J., & Rule, B. G. (1978). Effect on retaliation of causal attributions concerning attack. Journal of 

 Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 521–529.

Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV). 2005. Conserving the Eastern Brook Trout: An Overview of 

 Status, Threats, and Trends. Conservation Strategy Work Group: 14 pp. 

__. 2007. Conserving the Eastern Brook Trout: Action Strategies. Conservation Strategy/Habitat Work Group, 

 Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture: 64 pp.

Edwards, C. A. and P. J. Bohlen. 1996. Biology and Ecology of Earthworms. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY.

Edwards, P., C. Huber, and F. Wood. 2004. Ozone Exposures and Implications for Vegetation in Rural Areas of 

 the Central Appalachian Mountains, U.S.A. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 98: 157-174.

Eschtruth, Anne K. and John J. Battles. 2009. Assessing the relative importance of disturbance, herbivory, 

 diversity, and propagule pressure in exotic plant invasion. Ecological Monographs: Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 

 265-280.

Evans, J. E., S. A. Wilson, et al. 1982. West Virginia Wetlands Inventory, West Virginia Department of Natural 

 Resources, Wildlife Resources Division: 67.

Ewers, R. M. and R. K. Didham. 2007. The effect of fragment shape and species’ sensitivity to habitat edges on 

 animal population size. Conservation Biology 21(4): 926-936.

Ewald, P. W. and F. L. Carpenter. 1978. Territorial responses to energy manipulations in the Anna 

 hummingbird. Oecologia 31: 277–292.

Faber-Langendoen, D., G. Kudray, C. Nordman, L.Sneddon, L.Vance, E.Byers, J.Rocchio, S.Gawler, G.Kittel, S. 

 Menard, P.Comer, E.Muldavin, M.Schatale, T.Foti, C.Josse, J.Christy. 2008. Ecological Performance 

 Standards for Wetland Mitigation: An Approach Based on Ecological Integrity Assessments. 

 NatureServe, Arlington, VA. + Appendices.

Field, C. B., L. D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D. L. Forbes, P. Kovacs, J. A. Patz, S. W. Running and M. J. Scott. 

 2007. North America. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of 

 Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

 Change, M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson, Eds. 

 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 617-652.

Fink, A. D., F. R. Thompson, III, and A. A. Tudor. 2006. Songbird use of regenerating forest, glade, and edge 

 habitat types. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(1): 180-188.

Fischer, R. A. 2000. Width of Riparian Zones for Birds, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 7pp.
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Bibliography

Bibl-6

Fischer, R. A. and J. C. Fischenich. 2000. Design Recommendations for Riparian Corridors and Vegetated 

 Buffer Strips, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 

 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39180: 17.

Flaherty, K. 2006. 2006 Field season summary results: Canaan Valley NWR. Report to Refuge on current 

 research. West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. 5pp.

Ford, M. 2003. Memorandum to Canaan Valley NWR - Acoustic bat monitoring. U.S. Department of 

 Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Parsons, WV. 1pp.

Ford, W. M., S. L. Stephenson, J. M. Menzel, D. R. Black, J. W. Edwards. 2004. Habitat characteristics of

 the endangered Virginia northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) in the central 

 Appalachian Mountains. American Midland Naturalist 152:430-438

Ford, William M. 2007 personal communication 

Fortney, R. H. 1975. The vegetation of Canaan Valley, West Virginia: A taxonomic and ecological study. 

 Morgantown, WV, West Virginia University. PhD. Dissertation: 208.

__. 1997. A chronology of post logging plant succession in Canaan Valley through the development of a series of 

 vegetation maps from 1945 to present.

__. 2001. cv97. Morgantown, WV, West Virginia University: GIS data: Vegetation cover map of Canaan Valley 

 from 1997 aerial photos.

Fortney, R. H. and J. S. Rentch. 2003. Post logging era plant successional trends and geospatial vegetation 

 patterns in Canaan Valley, West Virginia, 1945 to 2000. Castanea 68(3): 317-334.

Fortney, R. H., S. L. Stephenson, and J. S. Rentch. 2005. Rare plant communities of Canaan Valley, West 

 Virginia, USA.

Francl, K. E. 2003. Community Characterization of High Elevation Central Appalachian Wetlands. Athens, 

 GA, University of Georgia. PhD: 166.

Franklin, J. F. and R. T. T. Forman. 1987. Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting: ecological 

 consequences and principles. Landscape Ecology 1(1): 5-18.

George, S. and K. Crooks. 2006. Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve. Biological 

 Conservation 133:107-117.

Gibbs, J. P. 1998. Amphibian movements in response to forest edges, roads, and streambeds in southern New 

 England. The Journal of Wildlife Management 62(2): 584-589.

Gibbs, J. P. and A. R. Breisch. 2001. Climate warming and calling phenology of frogs near Ithaca, NewYork, 

 1900-1999. Conservation Biology 15: 1175-1178.

Gill, J. A., K. Norris, and W. J. Sutherland. 2001. Why behavioral responses may not reflect the population 

 consequences of human disturbance. Biological Conservation 97: 265-268.

Gill, J. A., W. J. Sutherland, and A. R. Watkinson. 1996. A method to quanify the effects of human disturbance 

 on animal populations. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:786-792.

Green, D. M. 2008. Recreational impacts on erosion and runoff in a central Arizona riparian area. Journal of 

 Soil and Water Conservation 53: __.

Gullion, G. W. 1984. Managing Northern Forests for Wildlife. St. Paul, MN, Ruffed Grouse Society.
Bibliography

Bibliography Bibl-7

Gutzwiller, K. J., R. T. Wiedenmann, K. L. Clements, and S. H. Anderson. 1994. Effects of human intrusion on 

 song occurrence and singing consistence in subalpine birds. The Auk. 111: 28–37.

Gwinn, V. E. 1964. Thin skinned tectonics in the Plateau and northwestern valley and ridge of the central 

 Appalachians. Geological Society of America Bulletin 75: 863-900.

Hagan, J. M. and A. A. Whitman. 2004. Late-successional forest: a disappearing age class and implications for 

 biodiversity. Brunswick, Maine, Manomet Center for Conservation Science. FMSN-2004-2: 4.

Haley and Aldrich, Inc. 2008. Personal communication with geotechnical engineer regarding impacts from 

 bridge and boardwalk pile placement. 

Hammitt, W. E. and D. N. Cole. 1998. Wildlife Recreation: Ecology and Management (2nd edition). New York: 

 John Wiley and Sons. 361p.

Hamr, J. 1988. Disturbance behavior of chamois in an alpine tourist area of Austria. Mountain Research and 

 Development 8:65-73.

Hartman, K. J. and J. P. Hakala. 2006. Relationships between fine sediment and brook trout recruitment in 

 forested headwater streams. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 21(2): 215-230.

Holm, E. and E. J. Crossman. 1986. A report on a 1985 attempt to resurvey areas within the Ontario

 distribution of Clinostomus elongatus, the redside dace and to summarize previous records

 Unpublished report on file Fisheries Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Royal 

 Ontario Museum. 11 pages, 9 tables, 13 figs.

Horsley, S. B., S. L. Stout, and D. S. deCalesta. 2003. White-tailed deer impact on the vegetation dynamics of a 

 northern hardwood forest. Ecological Applications 13(1): 98-118.

Horsley, S. B. and D. A. Marquis 1983. Interference by weeds and deer with Allegheny hardwood reproduction. 

 Canandian Journal of Forest Research 13: 61-69.

Houlahan, J. E. and C. S. Findlay. 2004. Estimating the ‘critical’ distance at which adjacent land-use degrades 

 wetland water and sediment quality. Landscape Ecology 19(6): 677-690.

Hudgins, J. and D. Scott. 1988. Technical Evaluation Report for Section 404(c) Determination for Wetlands of 

 the Canaan Valley, West Virginia, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 46 pp.

Hudy, M., T. M. Thieling, N. Gillespie, and E. P. Smith. 2005. Distribution, status, and perturbations to brook 

 trout within the eastern United States. Final Report: Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture. Washington 

 D.C.: 76 pp.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and 

 Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the 

 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der 

 Linden, and C. E. Hanson, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1000 pp. 

Jacob, G. R. and R. Schreyer. 1980. Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective. Journal of 

 Leisure Research 12: 368-380.

Jenkins, M. A., C. R. Webster, and J. H. Rock.. 2007. Effects of chronic herbivory and historic land use on 

 population structure of a forest perennial, Trillium catesbaei. Applied Vegetation Science 10: 441-450.

Johnston, A.N. and Robert G. Anthony (2006). “Small mammal microhabitat associations and response to 

 grazing in Oregon.” Journal of Wildlife Management 72(8): 1736-1746.
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Bibliography

Bibl-8

Jones, A. L. and P. D. Vickery. 1997. Conserving Grassland Birds: Managing agricultural lands including 

 hayfields, crop fields, and pastures for grassland birds, Mass. Audubon Soc.: 15 pp.

Keddy, P. A. and C. G. Drummond. 1996. Ecological Properties for the Evaluation, Management, and 

 Restoration of Temperate Deciduous Forest Ecosystems. Ecological Applications 6(3): 748-762.

Keenan, M. T., C. S. Rosenberry, et al. 2008. Effects of hunter activities on deer movements and harvest. 

 Washington, DC, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation: 49 pp.

Keller, C. M. E., C. S. Robbins, and J. S. Hatfield. 1993. Avian communities in riparian forests of different 

 widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands 13(2): 137-144.

Kelley, J.R. Jr., and R. D. Rau. 2006. American woodcock population status, 2006. U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 

 Service, Laurel Maryland. 15 pp.

Kelley, J. R. and S. J. Williamson. 2008. American Woodcock Conservation Plan, Wildlife Management 

 Institute, Woodcock Task Force: 153 pp.

Kenny, S.A., and R. L. Knight. 2002. Flight distances of black-billed magpies in different regimes of human 

 density and persecution. Condor 94:545-547.

Keppie, D. M., R. M. Whiting, Jr., et al. 1994. American woodcock (Scolopax minor). The Birds of North 

 America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the American Ornithologists’ Union. 

 http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna

Kilgo, J. C., R. A. Sargent, B. R. Chapman, and K. V. Miller. 1998. Effect of Stand Width and Adjacent Habitat 

 on Breeding Bird Communities in Bottomland Hardwoods. The Journal of Wildlife Management 62(1): 

 72-83.

Klein, M. L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:31–39.

Klein, M. L., S. R. Humphrey, and H. F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution of waterbirds in a 

 wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology : 1454–1465.

Knight, R. L. and D. N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. Transactions of the 

 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56: 238-247.

Knight, R. L. and D. N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pp. 51-69 in R. L. Knight and K. J. 

 Gutzwiller (eds), Wildlife and Recreationists. Island Press, Washington D. C.

Knight, T. M. 2003. Effects of herbivory and its timing across populations of Trillium grandiflorum. American 

 Journal of Botany 90: 1207-1214.

Kozar, M. D. 1995. Water resources analysis of Canaan Valley, Tucker County, West Virginia. Morgantown, 

 WV, West Virginia University: 137 pp.

Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States: in U.S. Geological Survey, 

 1970, The national atlas of the United States of America. Washington D.C., USGS: Scale 1:7,500,000.

Kuss, F. R. 1986. A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation impacts. Environmental 

 Management 10:638-650.

Lafon, Nelson W., McMullin, Steve L, and Steffen, David E. 2003. Knowledge and Opinions of Stakeholders 

 of Black Bear Management in Virginia. Ursus, Vol. 14, No. 1 (2003), pp. 55-64. 

 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3872957 Accessed: 29/03/2010 14:57.
Bibliography

Bibliography Bibl-9

Lasenby, T. A. and S. J. Kerr. 2001. Brown trout stocking: an annotated bibliography and literature review. 

 Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario, 187 pp.

Lathan, R. E., J. Beyea, M. Benner, C. Adams Dunn, M. A. Fajvan, R. r. Freed, M. Grund, S. B. Horsley,

 A. Fowler Rhoads, and B. P. Shissler. 2005. Managing white-tailed deer in forest habitat from an 

 ecosystem perspective: Pennsylvania case study. Audubon Pennsylvania: 340 pp. 

Leffler, R. and C. Vogel. 2002. The Climate of Canaan Valley, West Virginia - Report submitted to the Canaan 

 Valley Task Force: 36 pp.

Lenth, B., M. Brennan, and R. L. Knight. 2006. The effects of dogs on wildlife communities. Natural Areas 

 Journal 28:218-227.

Loker, C.A. and Decker, D.J. 1995. Colorado Black Bear Hunting Referendum: What Was behind the Vote? 

 Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 370-376.

Lorimer, C. G. 2001. Historical and ecological roles of disturbance in eastern North American forests: 9000 

 years of change. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2): 425-439.

Losche, C. and W. W. Beverage. 1967. Soil Survey of Tucker County and part of Randolph County, West 

 Virginia. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, West 

 Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station.

MacArthur, R. A., V. Geist, and R. H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain sheep to 

 human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351-358.

Marquis, D. A. 1981. Effect of deer browsing on timber production in Allegheny hardwood forests of 

 Northwestern Pennsylvania. Res. Pap. NE-475. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

 Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.: 10 pp.

Marsh, D. and N. G. Beckman. 2004. Effects of forest roads on the abundance and activity of terrestrial 

 salamanders. Ecological Applications 14(6): 1882-1891.

Marsh, D. M., G. S. Milam, N. P. Gorham, and N. G. Beckmann. 2005. Forest roads as partial barriers to 

 terrestrial salamander movement. Conservation Biology 19:2004-2008.

Martin, C. W. and J. W. Hornbeck. 1989. Revegetation after strip cutting and block clearcutting in northern 

 hardwoods: A 10-year history, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeast Forest 

 Experiment Station: 17.

Maurer, B. A. and R. C. Whitmore. 1981. Foraging of Five Bird Species in Two Forests with Different 

 Vegetation Structure. The Wilson Bulletin 93(4): 478-490.

Menzel, J. M., W. M. Ford, M. A. Menzel, T. C. Carter, J. E. Gardner, J. D. Garner, and J. E. Hofmann. 2005. 

 Summer habitat use and home-range analysis of the endangered Indiana bat. Journal of Wildlife 

 Management 69: 430-436.

McGee, G. G., D. J. Leopold, and R. Nyland. 1999. Structural characteristics of old-growth, maturing, and 

 partially cut northern hardwood forests. Ecological Applications 9(4): 1316-1329. 

Michael, E. D. 1992. Impact of deer browsing on regeneration of balsam fir in Canaan Valley, West Virginia. 

 Nor. J. Appl. For. 9:89–90.

Michael, E. D. 1993. An Evaluation of the Wetland and Upland Habitats and Associated Wildlife Resources in 

 Southern Canaan Valley. Report Submitted to the Canaan Valley Task Force.: 95 pp.
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Bibliography

Bibl-10

Michael, E. D. and S. L. Brown. 2002. Waterfowl Surveys in Canaan Valley: 1980-1993. In Canaan Valley and 

 its Environs: A Landscape Heritage Celebration. Canaan Valley Institute, Davis, West Virginia. http:// 

 www.canaanvi.org/canaanvi_web/uploadedFiles/Events/Past_Events/4_michael_paper.pdf

Michael, E. D., C. M. Zielske, and W. A. Lesser. 1994. Population dynamics of the Canaan Valley West Virginia 

 Canada Goose population. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeast Association of Fish and 

 Wildlife Agencies: 48-54.

Millar, C., N. Stephenson and S. Stephens 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: Managing in the face

 of uncertainty. Ecological Applications, 17(8): 2145-2151.

Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Knight. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society 

 Bulletin 29:124-132.

Mitchell, D. 2006. Memo to Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, from West Virginia Division of Natural 

 Resources: 1 pp.

Monsanto. 2002. Glyphosate and Wildlife. Backgrounder. Monsanto Company. 

 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/products/productivity/roundup/gly_wildlife_bkg.pdf

Morse, D. H. 1994. Blackburnian Warbler. The Birds of North America - Life Histories for the 21st century. 

 A. Poole, P. Stettenheim and F. Gill, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and 

 American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.

Moss, L., K. Dzaack, et al. 2007. Interagency Status Report on the Fishery Resources of the Upper Blackwater 

 River in West Virginia. L. Moss. Davis, WV: 38pp.

National Park Service. 2000. Damaged and Threatened National Natural Landmarks. 2000 Final Report. 

 Washington, DC, Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 113.

Natural Resource Analysis Center (NRAC) and West Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 

 (WVCFWRU). 2000. wvlandcovgclap (GIS data, West Virginia GAP Analysis land cover dataset). West 

 Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.

NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Retrieved September 3, 2008, from 

 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/.

Neitsch S L, J. L. Arnold, J. P. Kinney, and J. R. Williams. 2001. Soil and water assessment tool documentation. 

 www.brc.tamus.edu/swat/swat2000doc.html.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) Committee. 2004. The North American Waterfowl 

 Management Plan: Strategic Guidance. December 2004. [Online] Retrieved 10 September 2008. 

 <www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/NAWMP/files/NAWMP2004.pdf>

Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee. 1996. Trapping and Furbearer Management: 

 Perspectives from the Northeast. 33pp.

Northheimer, J. 2002. An Overview of the Birds of Canaan Valley and Tucker County. In Canaan Valley and its 

 Environs: A Landscape Heritage Celebration. Canaan Valley Institute, Davis, West Virginia: 15.

Noss, R. and A. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature’s Legacy - Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island 

 Press, Washington, D.C.

Noss, R.F. 2000. The redwood forest: history, ecology and conservation of the coast redwoods. Covelo, CA: 

 Island Press.
Bibliography

Bibliography Bibl-11

Oliff, T. 2002. Personal Communication with Tom Oliff. National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park. 

 January 4, 2002.

Olson, D. and S. Lindall. 1999. IMPLAN professional. 2nd ed. MIG, Inc., Stillwater, Minnesota. 418 p.

Owen, R B., Jr., J.M. Anderson, J.W. Artmann, E.R. Clark, T.G. Dilworth, L.E. Gregg, F.W. Martin, J.D. 

 Newsom and S.R. Pursglove, Jr. 1977. American woodcock (Philohela minor and Scolopax minor of 

 Edwards 1974). Pp. 149-186 in: Management of Migratory Shore and Upland Game Birds in North 

 America, G.C. Sanderson, ed. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Washington, 

 D.C. 358 pp.

Pagen, R. W., F. R. Thompson, III, and D. E. Burhans. 2000. Breeding and post -breeding habitat use by forest 

 migrant songbirds in the Missouri Ozarks. Condor 102(4): 738-747.

Pauley, T. K. 2002. Amphibians in the Canaan Valley Drainage. Canaan Valley Celebration, Davis, West 

 Virginia, U.S.A., Canaan Valley Institute.

Pauley, T.K. 2008. Status of the Federally Threatened Cheat Mountain Salamander, Plethodon nettingi, 

 (Amphibia: Caudata): Sixty years later. Proceedings of the West Virginia Academy of Science 80(2):26- 

 29.

Pauley, T. K. and J. L. Waldron. 2008. The effects of trails and gated roads on movement patterns and relative 

 abundance of the federally threatened Cheat Mountain Salamander (Plethodon nettingi). Study 

 proposal to the Monongahela National Forest. 

Pashley, David N., et al. 2000. Partners in Flight Conservation of the Land Birds of the United States. 

 American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA.

Peak, R. G. and F. R. Thompson, III. 2006. Factors affecting avian species richness and density in riparian 

 areas. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(1): 173-179.

Petranka, J. W., M. E. Eldridge, and K. E. Haley. 1993. Effects of timber harvesting on Southern Appalachian 

 salamanders. Conservation Biology 7:363-370.

Peyton, B. 1998. Defining management issues: dogs, hunting and society. Transactions of the North American 

 Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 63:544-554.

Pinay, G., H. DeCamps, et al. 1992. Functions of ecotones in fluvial systems. Pages 141-164 in R. J. Naiman 

 and H. Decamps. The ecology and management of aquatic-terrestrial ecotones. Parthenon Publishing, 

 Paris, France.

Popotnik, G. J. and W. M. Giuliano. 2000. “Response of birds to grazing of riparian zones.” 

 Journal Of Wildlife Management 64(4): 976-982.

Ramthun, R. 1995. Factors in user group conflict between hikers and mountain bikers: Leisure Sciences: An 

 Interdisciplinary Journal, v. 17, no. 3, p. 159 - 169.

Rayburn, E. 2001. Personal Communication with Ed Rayburn, West Virginia University Agricultural 

 Extension Office. December 10, 2001.

Rentch, J. S., T. M. Schuler, W. M. Ford, and G. J. Nowacki. 2007. Red spruce stand dynamics, simulations, and 

 silvicultural restoration opportunities in the Allegheny Mountains of West Virginia. Restoration 

 Ecology 15(3): 440-452.

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, 

 E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. 
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Bibliography

Bibl-12

Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American 

 Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY.

Rives, W. C. 1898. The summer birds of the West Virginia spruce belt. The Auk 15(2): 131-137.

Rizzo, A. 2002. Personal Communications with Al Rizzo, Soil Scientist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 

 17-19, 2002.

Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the 

 middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monographs 103: 1-34.

Rodgers, J. A. and H. T. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human 

 disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9:89–99.

Rodgers, J. A. and H. T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from 

 human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:139–145.

Roe, J. H. and A. Ruesink. 2004. Natural dynamics silviculture: a discussion of natural community-based 

 forestry practices. The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Montpelier, VT.

Romme, R. C., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack. 1995. Literature summary and habitat suitability index model; 

 components of summer habitat for the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Indiana Endangered Species 

 Program Project E-1-7, Study No. 8. 38 pages.

Roovers, P., K Verheyen, M. Hermy, and H. Gulinck. 2004. Experimental trampling and vegetation recovery in 

 some forest and heathland communities. Applied Vegetation Science 7:111-118.

Rotenberry, J.T., Cooper, R.J., Wunderle, J., Smith, K.M., 1995. When and how are populations limited? The 

 role of insect outbreaks, fire, weather and other natural perturbation. In: Martin, T.E., Finch, D.M. 

 (Eds.), Ecology and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. Oxford University Press, New York, 

 NY, pp. 55–84.

Rueppel, M. L., B. B. Brightwell, J. Schaefer, and J. T. Marvel. 1977. Metabolism and degradation of glyphosate 

 in soil and water. J. Agric Food Chem 25(3): 517–528.

Runge, M. C., L. R. Mitchell, and C. J. Norment. 2004. Grassland bird breeding use of managed grasslands on 

 National Wildlife Refuges within Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [Preliminary Report]. 

 U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. 41 pp.

Saab, V.A., C.E. Bock, T.D. Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1995. Livestock grazing effects in western North America. 

 Pages 311-353 in T.E. Martin and D.M. Finch, editors. Ecology and management of neotropical birds. 

 Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2007. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 

 1966 - 2006. Version 10.13.2007. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. on line 

 Breeding Bird Survey summary accessed March24, 2009.

Sauer, J. R., W. A. Link, J. D. Nichols, and J. A. Royle. 2005. Using the North American Breeding Bird Survey 

 as a tool for conservation: a critique of Bart et al. (2004). Journal of Wildlife Management 69(4): 1321- 

 1326. 

Schultz, R. D. and M. Stock. 1993. Kentish plovers and tourist-competitors on sandy coasts? Wader Study 

 Group Bulletin 68(special issue): 83-92.

Schultz, R. D. and J. A. Bailey. 1978. Responses of national park elk to human activity. Journal of Wildlife 

 Management 42:91-100.
Bibliography

Bibliography Bibl-13

Semlitsch, R. D. 1998. Biological Delineation of Terrestrial Buffer Zones for Pond-Breeding Salamanders. 

 Conservation Biology 12(5): 1113-1119.

Semlitsch, R. D., T. J. Ryan, K. Hamed, M. Chatfield, B. Drehman, N. Pekarek, M. Spath, and A. Watland. 

 2007. Salamander abundance along road edges and within abandoned logging roads in Appalachian 

 forests. Conservation Biology 21:159-167.

Sepik, G. F., R. B. Owen, Jr, and .M. W. Coulter. 1981. A Landowner’s Guide to Woodcock Management in the 

 Northeast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge. Maine Agricultural 

 and Forest Experiment Station Miscellaneous Report 253. 25 pp. 

 http://www.umaine.edu/mafes/elec_pubs/miscrepts/ne_woodcock.pdf

Sexton, N.R., Burkhardt, N. Swann, M.E., and Stewart, S.C. 2009. Stakeholder evaluation of Canaan Valley 

 National Wildlife Refuge – completed report: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1030, 66 

 p.

Sherry, T. W. and R. T. Holmes. 1985. Dispersion patterns and habitat responses of birds in northern hardwood 

 forests. Pp 283 – 309 in M. L. Cody (ed), Habitat Selection In Birds. New York Academic Press, NY.

Simonson, S., D. Barnett, T. Stohlgren, and USFWS. 2004. The Invasive Species Survey: A Report on the 

 Invasion of the National Wildlife Refuge System. A Technical Report for the National Wildlife Refuge 

 System, May 2004. 38 pp.

Smith, S. B., K. H. McPherson, J. M. Backer, B. J. Pierce, D. W. Podlesak, and S. W. McWilliams. 2007. Fruit 

 quality and consumption by songbirds during autumn migration. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119(3): 

 419-428. 

Snyder, C. D., J. A. Young, and B. M. Stout III. 2002. A Landscape Perspective on Aquatic Habitats in Canaan 

 Valley, West Virginia. In Canaan Valley and its Environs: A Landscape Heritage Celebration. Canaan 

 Valley Institute, Davis, West Virginia. http://www.canaanvi.org/canaanvi_web/uploadedFiles/Events/ 

 Past_Events/snyder_paper.pdf.

Snyder, C. D., J. A. Young, and B. M. Stout III. 2006. Aquatic habitats of Canaan Valley, West Virginia: 

 diversity and environmental threats. Northeastern Naturalist 13:333-352.

Southwick Associates. 2007. Hunting in America: An economic engine and conservation powerhouse. Produced 

 for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies with funding from the Multistate Conservation Grant 

 Program.

Stauffer, F. and L. B. Best. 1980. Habitat selection by birds of riparian communities: Evaluating effects of 

 habitat alterations. The Journal of Wildlife Management 44(1): 1-15.

Stauffer, J. R., J. M. Boltz, and L. R. White. 1995. The Fishes of West Virginia. The Proceedings of the 

 Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 146:1–389. 

Steketee, A. K. 2000. Predicting Habitat Suitability for American Woodcock and Landscape-level Assessment 

 of Habitat in West Virginia. Morgantown, West Virginia, West Virginia University.

Stout, B. M. 1992. Impact of ORV use on vegetative communities of northern Canaan Valley, West Virginia. 

 Wheeling, West Virginia, Wheeling Jesuit College: 24 pp.

Straw, J.A, Jr., D.G. Krementz, M.W. Olinde and G.K. Sepik. 1994. American woodcock. Pp. 149-186 in: 

 Migratory Shore and Upland Game Bird Management in North America, T.C. Tacha and C.E. Braun, 

 Eds. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Washington, D.C. 223 pp. 

Suarez, A. V., K. S. Pfennig, and S. K. Robinson. 1997. Nesting success of a disturbance-dependent songbird on 

 different kinds of edges. Conservation Biology 11(4): 928-935.
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Bibliography

Bibl-14

Summer, R. 1986. Geomorphic impacts of horse traffic on montane landforms. Journal of Soil and Water 

 Conservation, 41:126-128.

Sweka, J. A. and K. J. Hartman. 2001. Effects of turbidity on prey consumption and growth in brook trout and 

 implications for bioenergetics modeling. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 386- 

 393. 

Switalski, T. A., J. A. Bissonette, T. H. Deluca, C. H. Luce, and M. A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and impacts of road 

 removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(1): 21-28. 

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA). 1996. Selected commercial formulations of glyphosate

 Accord, Rodeo, Roundup, and Roundup Pro. SERA TR 96-22-02-01c, Final Report dated June 30, 1996.

Taylor, Curtis (WVDNR, Charleston, WV). Letter to: Beth Goldstein (USFWS, Hadley, MA). 2009 June 23. 

 7pp.

Tiner, R. W. 1996. Current status of West Virginia’s wetlands: Results of the National Wetlands Inventory. 

 Hadley, MA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Region 5: 44pp. plus appendices.

Town of Davis, West Virginia. 2006. http://www.daviswva.com/index.html

Trails and Wildlife Task Force. 1998. Planning trails with wildlife in mind: A handbook for trail planners. 

 Colorado State Parks, Denver, CO. 51pp.

Trani, M. K., R. T. Brooks, T. L. Schmidt, V. A. Rudis, and C. M. Gabbard. 2001. Patterns and trends of early 

 successional forests in the Eastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2): 413-424.

Triquet, A. M., G. A. McPeek, and W. C. McComb. 1990. Songbird diversity in clearcuts with and without a 

 riparian buffer strip. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45(4): 500-503.

Tucker County Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2006. “Canaan Valley, Blackwater Falls, Tucker County 

 Visitors Guide.” from http://www.canaanvalley.org/West-Virginia-Vacations/WV-Parks-Forest- 

 Wilderness.html.

Turchi, G. M., P. L. Kennedy, D. Urban, and D. Heinz. 1995. Bird species richness in relation to isolation of 

 aspen habitats. Wilson Bulletin 107(3): 463-474. 

Tyrrell, L. E., G. J. Nowacki, D. S. Buckley, E. A. Nauertz,J. N. Niese, J. L. Rollinger, T. S. Crow, and J. C. 

 Zasada. 1998. Information about old growth for selected forest type groups in the eastern United 

 States. General Technical Report NC-197. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

 North Central Forest Experiment Station: 473 pp. 

United States North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) Committee. 2000. North American Bird 

 Conservation Initiative; Bringing it All Together. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington, Virginia, 

 USA.

United States Census Bureau. 2000. U.S. Census Bureau - Decennial Census Data for 2000 - Summary File 1 

 and Summary File 3, U.S. Census Bureau. 2000.

__. 2008. Census 2000 Summary file, American FactFinder, www.census.gov.

United States Congress- Public Law. 1986. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. 16 U.S.C. 3901-3932, 

 November 10, 1986, as amended 1988 and 1992.

United States Department of Commerce. 2008. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information 

 System. <www.bea.gov>.
Bibliography

Bibliography Bibl-15

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and United States Department of 

 Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. 2001 National and state economic impacts of wildlife watching– 

 Addendum to the 2001 National survey of fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated recreation: 

 Report 2001-2.

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and United States Department of 

 Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.. 2008. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- 

 Associated Recreation. 164 pp.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1996. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related 

 Photochemical Oxidants. Office of Research and Development’s National Center for Environmental 

 Assessment, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. 

__. 1998. “Total Maximum Daily Load Upper Blackwater River, West Virginia.” 

http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/wv_tmdl/BlackwaterRiver/index.htm

__.2009. MyEnvironment. Tucker County, WV http://www.epa.gov/

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Acquisition 

 of lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of the Interior - 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

__. 1990. Appalachian Northern Flying Squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus and Glaucomys sabrinus 

 coloratus) Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 53 pp.

__. 1990. Regional Wetlands Concept Plan: Emergency Wetlands Resources Act. Northeast Region. October 

 1990.

__. 1991. Cheat Mountain Salamander (Plethodon nettingi) recovery plan. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

 Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 35pp.

__. 1993. Off-road vehicle use and impact in Canaan Valley, Tucker County, West Virginia, West Virginia Field 

 Office Special Project Report 92-2: 17pp.

__. 1994a. Final Environmental Assessment - Acquisition of lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife 

 Refuge, West Virginia. Department of Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, 

 Massachusetts. 50 pp.

__. 1994b. Canaan Valley NWR Land Protection Plan. Hadley, MA: 34 pp.

__. 1994c. Canaan Valley NWR Station Management Plan. Hadley, MA: 28 pp.

__. 1996. American Woodcock Management Plan - Department of Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

 Hadley, Massachusetts.

__. 2004a. Writing Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System. January 2004. 30 pp.

__. 2003. National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Management Strategy. U.S. Department of the 

 Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge system. http://www.fws.gov/ 

 invasives/pdfs/NationalStrategyFinalRevised05-04.pdf 

__. 2006. Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge - Upland Forest Inventory. Department of Interior - U.S. 

 Fish and Wildlife Service: 34pp.

__. 2006a. West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel 5-Year Review. Elkins, West Virginia. 
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Bibliography

Bibl-16

__. 2006b. “Canaan Valley NWR Profile”, 2006. from 

 <http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=51630>.

__. 2007a. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

 Fort Snelling, MN. 260 pp.

__. 2007b. “Memorandum of understanding for the conservation of the red spruce-northern hardwood 

 ecosystem.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service West Virginia Field Office, Elkins West Virginia. 22pp.

__. 2007c. Amended Refuge Hunt Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Canaan Valley National Wildlife 

 Refuge, Davis, WV. 17pp.

__. 2007d. Fishing and Hunting Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005. Report 2001-11

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Cheat Mountain Salamander (Plethodon netting) 5 Year 

 Review: Summary and Evaluation. West Virginia Field Office, Elkins, WV

United States Forest Service (USFS). 2006. Monongahela National Forest Final Land and Resource 

 Management Plan 2006. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Elkins, WV.

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB), Inc. 2008. Canaan Valley NWR – Cross Valley Trail Feasibility Study. 

 Richmond, Virginia. 23 pages.

Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., Wittmann, K., & Laidlaw, S. 1995. Interpersonal versus social values conflict. 

 Leisure Sciences, 17, 205–222.

Vickery, P. D. 1996. Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). The birds of North America. In 

 A.Poole and F.Gill, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia and the American 

 Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C. 

Vitz, A. C. and A. D. Rodewald. 2006. Can regenerating clearcuts benefit mature-forest birds? An examination 

 of post-breeding ecology. Biological Conservation 127: 477-486.

Vitz, A. C. and A. D. Rodewald. 2007. Vegetative and fruit resources as determinants of habitat use by mature- 

 forest birds during the post breeding period. The Auk 124(2): 494-507.

Vogelmann, H. W. 1978. Evaluation of the Canaan Valley - Cabin Mountain Wetland, Tucker County, West 

 Virginia. Prepared for the Department of the Army, Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers, 

 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: 81 pp.

Walker JW, Kronberg SL, Al-Rawaily SL, West NE. 1994. Managing noxious weeds with livestock: studies on 

 leafy spurge. Sheep Research Progress Report. No. 3, USDA-ARS 1994-4. p 125-135.

Warren, K. A. 2001. Habitat use, nest success and management recommendations for grassland birds of

 the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Wildlife and Fisheries Resource 

 Management. Morgantown, WV, West Vi. Master of Science: 146 pp.

Watkins, R. Z., J. Chen, J. Pickens, K. D. Brosofske. 2003. Effects of forest roads to understory plants in a 

 managed hardwood landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2): 411-419.

Watson, Alan E., Williams, Daniel R., and Daigle, John J. 1991. Sources of conflict between hikers and 

 mountain bike riders in the Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 9(3): 

 59-71.
Bibliography

Bibliography Bibl-17

Watts, B. D. 2000. Management of park fields to enhance natural resource value and biodiversity of Colonial 

 National Historic Park, Center for Conservation Biology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, 

 VA.: 23.

Weaver, T. and D. Dale. 1978. Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles and horses in meadows and forests. 

 Journal of Applied Ecology, 15:451-457.

Wells, F. H. and W. K. Lauenroth. 2007. The potential for horses to disperse alien plants along recreational 

 trails. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60:574-577.

Weber, J.B. 1991. Fate and behavior of herbicides in soils. Applied Plant Sciences 5(1):27–41.

West Virginia Division of Forestry (WVDOF). 2001. Best Management Practices for Controlling Soil Erosion 

 and Sedimentation from Logging Practices in West Virginia. Charleston, WV: 21pp.

West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WVDNR). 1964. West Virginia Conservation: Annual 

 Report: pp 18-21. 

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 1999. Performance Report: West Virginia Endangered Animal 

 Species. Project E-1-16 (1 July 1998 through 30 June 1999).

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 2000. Performance Report: West Virginia Endangered Animal 

 Species. Project E-1-17 (1 July 1999 through 30 June 2000). 

__. 2006. West Virginia Wildlife Conservation Action Plan, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, 

 Wildlife Diversity Program.

West Virginia Rails-to-Trails Council. 2002. <http://www.wvrtc.org/trails/tucker_history.html>

Westholder, J., T. T. Findley, et al. 1996. The impact of sport raccoon hunting on deer movement and deer 

 hunting success. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Whitman, A. A. and J. M. Hagan. 2004. A rapid-assessment late-successional index for northern hardwoods and 

 spruce-fir forest. Brunswick, Maine, Manomet Center for Conservation Science. FMSN-2004-3: 4.

Wilcove, D. S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds. Ecology 66(4): 1211- 

 1214.

Williamson, S. J. (Editor). 2008. American woodcock habitat: Best management practices for the central 

 Appalachian Mountains region. Wildlife Management Institute. 28pp.

Wilkerson, E., J. M. Hagan, D. Siegel, and A. A. Whitman. 2005. The effectiveness of different buffer width for 

 protecting headwater stream temperature in Maine. Forest Science 52(3): 221-231.

Yeany, D. 2009. Avian Community Analysis and Habitat Relationships at Finzel Swamp, Maryland. 

 Applied Ecology and Conservation Biology. Frostburg, MD, Frostburg State University. Master of 

 Science: 154 pp.

Zeedyke, B. 2002. Summary Report of Road Related Wetlands Impacts of the Canaan Valley NWR, Contract 

 Hydrologist: 5 pp.

Zimmer, C. 2001. Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. From National Forest Service, Green Mountain and 

 Fingerlakes National Forests, New York.

Zurbuch, P. E. 2002. Historic Fishery of the Blackwater River. In Canaan Valley and its Environs: A 

 Landscape Heritage Celebration. Canaan Valley Institute, Davis, West Virginia. 

 http://www.canaanvi.org/canaanvi_web/uploadedFiles/Events/Past_Events/zurbuch_abstract.pdf
Umbagog Lake

USFWS

Appendix A

Species of Conservation Concern 

at Canaan Valley National 

Wildlife Refuge
Appendix A. Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge A-1

Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Table A.1. Resources of Concern for Canaan Valley NWR (See table A.2 for bird species)

Species / Community

State RankGlobal RankFed T&EWV WCAPUSFS

Plant communities

Balsam Fir - Black Ash Swamp S1 G1 H

Balsam Fir - Oatgrass Swamp S2 G2 H

Balsam Fir - Winterberry Swamp S1 G2 H

Quaking Aspen Swamp SNR GNR H

Red Spruce - Heath Peat Woodland S2 G2G3 H

Red Spruce - Hemlock - Rhododendron Swamp S2 G2? H

Red Spruce - Yellow Birch - Mannagrass Swamp S2S3 G3 H

American Bur-reed Marsh S2 G2G3 H

Beaked Sedge Fen S2 G4G5 M

Bluejoint Grass Wet Meadow S2 G24G5 H

Cottongrass Fen S3 G3 M

Goldenrod Wet Meadow S3 GNR H

Lake Sedge Fen S1 G4G5 M

Nodding Sedge – Prickly Bog Sedge Seep S2 G2 M

Rice Cutgrass Marsh S3 GNR H

Silvery Sedge Fen S2 GNR M

Softstem Bulrush Marsh S2 GNR H

Star Sedge Fen S2 G2? M

Threeway Sedge Fen S3 GNR H

Tussock Sedge Wet Meadow S3 G4G5 H

Woolgrass Wet Meadow S3 GNR H

Blueberry - Bracken Fern Shrub Swamp S3 GNR H

Bushy St. John’s-wort Shrub Swamp S3 GNR H

Chokeberry - Wild Raisin Shrub Peatland S3 GNR H

Cranberry - Beakrush Peatland S2 G2 H

Meadowsweet Shrub Swamp S3 GNR H

Silky Willow Shrub Swamp S3 GNR H

Speckled Alder - Arrowwood Shrub Swamp S3 GNR H

Speckled Alder Shrub Swamp S3 G5 H

Steeplebush Shrub Swamp S2 GNR H
A-2 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Species / Community

State RankGlobal RankFed T&EWV WCAPUSFS

Red Spruce - Yellow birch / mountain holly / Bazzania / 

Hypnum Forest

new type 

(S2) NEW TYPE H

Red Spruce - Hemlock - Red Maple - Black birch Forest (S2) GNR H

Red Spruce / Mountain laurel - menziesia Rocky woodland (S1) G3G5 H

Rough Sedge Seep S3 G3 H

Plants

Abies balsamea (balsam fir) S3 G5

Betula papyrifera (paper birch) S2 G5

Botrychium lanceolatum var. angustisegmentum (lanceleaf 

grapefern) S1 G5T4 FH (RFSS)

Botrychium matricariifolium ** (chamomile grapefern) S2 G5

Botrychium oneidense (bluntlobe grapefern) S1 G4 F1 (RFSS)

Carex aestivalis (summer sedge) S2 G4

Carex atherodes (wheat sedge) S1 G5

Carex bromoides (brome-like sedge) S2 G5

Carex canescens (silvery sedge) S3 G5

Carex comosa (longhair sedge) S2 G5

Carex emoryi (Emory’s sedge) S1 G5

Carex lacustris (hairy sedge) S2 G5

Carex lasiocarpa (woollyfrruit sedge) S1 G5

Carex leptonervia (nerveless woodland sedge) S1 G4

Carex normalis (larger straw sedge) S2 G5

Carex projecta (necklace sedge) S1 G5

Carex suberecta (prairie straw sedge) S1 G4

Carex utriculata (beaked sedge) S2 G5

Carex vesicaria (inflated sedge) S2 G5

Coptis trifolia (goldthread) S2 G5

Cornus canadensis (bunchberry) S3 G5 F3

Cuscuta rostrata (beaked dodder) S2 G4

Cypripedium reginae ** (showy lady’s slipper) S1 G4 F1 (RFSS)

Dalibarda repens (star violet) S3 G5

Drosera rotundifolia (roundleaved sundew) S3 G5

Eleocharis palustris (creeping spikerush) S1 G5

Equisetum fluviatile (water horsetail) S2 G5
Appendix A. Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge A-3

Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Species / Community

State RankGlobal RankFed T&EWV WCAPUSFS

Equisetum sylvaticum (woodland horsetail) S1 G5

Eupatorium pilosum (vervain thoroughwort) S2 G5

Euphorbia purpurea (glade spurge) S2 G3 F1 (RFSS)

Fraxinus nigra (black ash) S2S3 G5

Gaultheria hispidula (creeping snowberry) S2S3 G5

Geum aleppicum ** (yellow avens) S1 G5

Geum rivale (purple avens) S1 G5

Glyceria grandis var. grandis (American mannagrass) S2 G5

Glyceria laxa (limp mannagrass) S1 G5

Gymnocarpium appalachianum ** (Appalachian oak fern) S1 G3 F1 (RFSS)

Hasteola suaveolens (sweet-scented Indian plantain) S2 G3G4 F1 (RFSS)

Juncus articulatus (jointed rush) S2 G5

Juncus biflorus (grass-leaved rush) S1 G5

Juncus filiformis (thread rush) S2 G5 F1 (RFSS)

Listera smallii ** (Small’s twayblade) S2 G4

Lonicera canadensis ** (American fly-honeysuckle) S2 G5

Luzula bulbosa (bulbous woodrush) S1 G5

Lycopodiella inundata (bog clubmoss) S2 G5

Lycopodium lagopus (one-cone groundpine) S1 G5

Lygodium palmatum (climbing fern) S3 G4

Najas gracillima (slender water nymph) S2 G5

Oenothera pilosella ssp. Pilosella ** (evening primrose) S2 G5

Ophioglossum engelmannii ** (limestone adder’s-tongue 

fern) S1 G5

Pedicularis lanceolata (swamp lousewort) S2 G5

Pogonia ophioglossoides ** (rose pogonia) S2 G5

Polemonium vanbruntiae (Jacob’s-ladder) S2 G3 F1 (RFSS)

Rhamnus alnifolia (alder-leaf buckthorn) S1 G5

Rubus pubescens (dwarf raspberry) SH G5

Sagittaria calycina var. calycina (long-lobe arrowhead) S2 G5

Salix discolor (glaucous willow) S2 G5

Saxifraga pensylvanica (Pennsylvania saxifrage) S2 G5 F1

Schizachne purpurascens ** (false melic) S1 G5

Schoenoplectus purshianus (weakstalk bulrush) S3 G4G5
A-4 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Species / Community

State RankGlobal RankFed T&EWV WCAPUSFS

Scirpus atrocinctus (blackgirdle bulrush) S3 G5

Scirpus microcarpus (panicled bulrush) S3 G5

Sparganium androcladum (branchy bur-reed) S1 G4

Stachys aspera (gritty hedge-nettle) S1 G4

Taxus canadensis ** (Canada yew) S2S3 G5 FP

Thelypteris simulata (bog fern) S1 G4

Torreyochloa pallida var. fernaldii (pale false mannagrass) S2 G5

Vaccinium macrocarpon (large cranberry) S2 G4

Vaccinium oxycoccos (small cranberry) S2 G5

Veronica scutellata (marsh speedwell) S1 G5

Viburnum lentago (nannyberry) S1S2 G5

Viburnum opulus var. americanum (cranberrybush) S1 G5

Viola appalachiensis (Appalachian blue violet) S1 G3 F2 (RFSS)

Zigadenus leimanthoides (bog camas) S2 G4

Birds (see separate table)

Amphibians

Cheat mountain salamander S2 G2 T Y F2

Mammals

West Virginia northern flying squirrel S2 G5T2 Y F2

Star-nosed mole S2 G5 Y F2

Fisher S3 G5 Y F3

Southern rock vole S2 T3 Y F2 (RFSS)

Eastern small-footed bat S1 G3 Y F1 (RFSS)

Indiana bat S1 G2 E Y F1

Appalachian Cottontail S3 G5

Allegheny woodrat ** S3 G3 Y F3 (RFSS)

Southern water shrew ** S1 G5 Y F1 (RFSS)

Southern bog lemming S2 G5 Y F1

Meadow jumping mouse S3 G5 Y F2

Southern pygmy shrew S2S3 G5T4 Y F1

Reptiles

Timber rattlesnake** S3 G4 Y F3 (RFSS)

Northern coal skink** S2 T5 F1

Mountain earth snake ** S1 G5T3T4 Y F1
Appendix A. Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge A-5

Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Species / Community

State RankGlobal RankFed T&EWV WCAPUSFS

Butterfl ies

Harris’s checkerspot S2 G4 Y F1

Pink-edged sulfur S1 T1? Y F1

Atlantis fritillary S3 G5 Y F3

Crayfi sh

Crayfish (Cambarus monongalensis) S3 G5 Y

Odonates

Sweetflag Spreadwing (Lestes forcipatus) SH G5

Comet Darner (Anax longipes) S1 G5 Y

Hudsonian Whiteface (Leucorrhinia hudsonica) S1 G5 Y

Chalk-fronted Corporal (Ladona julia) S2 G5 Y

Delta-spotted Spiketail (Cordulegaster diastatops) S2 G5 Y

Swamp Spreadwing (Lestes vigilax) S2 G5 Y

White-faced Meadowhawk (Sympetrum obtrusum) S2 G5 Y

Northern Bluet (Enallagma annexum) S2 G5

Green-striped Darner (Aeshna verticalis) S2 G5

Northern Pygmy Clubtail (Lanthus parvulus) S2 G4

Southern Spreadwing (Lestes d.australis) S2S3 G5T5

Band-winged Meadowhawk (Sympetrum semicinctum) S3 G5 Y

Fish

Redside dace (Clinostomus elongatus) S1S2 G4 Y

Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) S4 G5 Y

**: species known or expected to occur in Canaan Valley, but have not yet been documented from CVNWR.

WV WCAP: plant communities were listed in WCAP table 4F-Habitats-30, based on their Conservation Priority. 

 H: high conservation priority

 M: medium conservation priority

USFS: from Monongahela Forest Plan 2006, Table D-1, Species chosen for detailed fine-filter analysis for the 

Monongahela National Forest plan revision terrestrial species viability evaluation.

 F: abundance rank for the Monongahela National Forest

 RFSS: Regional Forester’s sensitive species for the Monongahela National Forest
A-6 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Table A.2 Resource of Concern for Canaan Valley NWR-Migratory Birds Common Name Primary Habitat (from PIF Continental Plan ) USFWS BCC 2008 Region 5 PIF Area 12 Draft BCR 28 (BCR Rule) Global Rank

State NHP Rank (Bold = WVWCAP SGNC)

Migratory Species of 

Concern in Northern 

BCR’s BCR 8

BCR 12BCR 13BCR 14

Bay-breasted warbler coniferous forest X G5 x

Cape May warbler coniferous forest G5 x x

Northern saw-whet Owl coniferous forest f G5 S2B, S3N

Pine Siskin coniferous forest G5 S1B, S4N

Red Crossbill coniferous forest G5 S1B

Black-and-white Warbler deciduous forest f G5

Black-billed Cuckoo deciduous forest b G5 S3B x

Brown Creeper deciduous forest G5 S3B,S4N

Cerulean Warbler deciduous forest X 1a a G4 S4B x x

Cooper’s Hawk deciduous forest G5 S3B, S4N

Eastern Wood Pewee deciduous forest 2a f G5 S5B

Hooded Warbler deciduous forest 2b d G5

Louisiana Waterthrush deciduous forest 2b d G5 S5B

Northern Parula deciduous forest 2a G5

Northern Waterthrush deciduous forest G5 S2B

Red-shouldered Hawk deciduous forest G5

Rusty Blackbird deciduous forest X G4

Scarlet Tanager deciduous forest 2b G5

Sharp-shinned Hawk deciduous forest G5 S3B, S4N

Worm-eating Warbler deciduous forest X 1a c G5 S5B

Yellow-throated Warbler deciduous forest i G5

Bobolink grassland G5 S2B

Clay-colored Sparrow grassland G5 S1B

Eastern Meadowlark grassland f G5

Grasshopper Sparrow grassland 2c G5 S3B

Henslow’s Sparrow grassland X 1b a G4 S1B x x

Northern Harrier grassland G5 S1B, S3N

Sedge Wren grassland X 2c G5 S1B

Short-eared owl grassland X G5 S1B, S2N

Blackburnian warbler mixed forest 2c f G5 S3B

Black-throated Blue 

Warbler mixed forest 2c X G5

x

Broad-winged Hawk mixed forest i G5
Appendix A. Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge A-7

Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Common NamePrimary Habitat (from PIF Continental Plan )USFWS BCC 2008 Region 5PIF Area 12Draft BCR 28 (BCR Rule)Global RankState NHP Rank (Bold = WVWCAP SGNC)

Migratory Species of 

Concern in Northern 

BCR’s BCR 8

BCR 12BCR 13BCR 14

Canada warbler mixed forest X 1a c G5 x x x

Downy Woodpecker mixed forest i G5

Nashville Warbler mixed forest X G5 S1B

Northern Goshawk mixed forest X G5 S1B, S1N

Ruffed Grouse mixed forest f G5

Swainson’s Thrush mixed forest G5 S1B

Wood Thrush mixed forest X 1a c G5 S5B x x

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker mixed forest X G5 S1B, S3N

Yellow-rumped Warbler mixed forest G5 S3B,S3N

Belted Kingfisher Riparian i G5

Alder Flycatcher shrub/successional X G5 S3B, S4N

American Woodcock shrub/successional 1b X G5 S4B, S4N

Barn Owl shrub/successional G5 S1B, S1N

Brown Thrasher shrub/successional 2a X G5

Eastern Towhee shrub/successional 2a f G5

Field Sparrow shrub/successional 2a b G5 S4B, S4N

Golden-winged Warbler shrub/successional X 1a a G4 S2B x x

Indigo Bunting shrub/successional 2a i G5

Migrant loggerhead Shrike shrub/successional 2c X G5 S1B, S2N

Northern Bobwhite shrub/successional G5 S3B, S3N

Song Sparrow shrub/successional i G5

Vesper Sparrow shrub/successional X G5 S3B, S3N x

Whip-poor-will shrub/successional X 2a b G5 S3B x

White-throated Sparrow shrub/successional G5

Willow Flycatcher shrub/successional 1b J G5 S4B

American Bittern wetland X G4 S1B, S1N

American Black Duck wetland 1b G5 S2B, S4N

Bald Eagle wetland G5 S2B, S3N

Solitary Sandpiper Wetland X G5

Great Blue Heron wetland G5 S2B, S4N

Green-winged Teal wetland G5 SHB, S2N

Hooded Merganser wetland G5 S1B, S4N
A-8 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Common Name Primary Habitat (from PIF Continental Plan ) USFWS BCC 2008 Region 5 PIF Area 12 Draft BCR 28 (BCR Rule)

Global RankState NHP Rank (Bold = WVWCAP SGNC)

Migratory Species of 

Concern in Northern 

BCR’s BCR 8

BCR 12BCR 13BCR 14

Marsh Wren wetland G5 S1B

Osprey wetland G5 S2B, S2N

Pied-billed Grebe wetland X G5 S2B, S4N

Sora wetland G5 S1B, S1N

Spotted Sandpiper wetland G5 S3B 

Virginia Rail wetland G5 S1B, S1N

Wilson’s Snipe wetland G5 S1B, S1N

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher wetland - forested i G5

Black Vulture G5 S3B, S4N

Chimney Swift d G5

Peregrine Falcon X G4 S1B, S2N

Table A-3. Additional migratory birds comprising >1% of all captures at AFBMO not listed in any plan

SPECIES PRIMARY HABITAT SEASON %OF TOTAL CAPTURES AFMBO

Ovenbird deciduous forest B,M 1.91%

Red-eyed vireo deciduous forest B,M 1.13%

Blue Jay deciduous forest B,M 1.93%

Hermit Thrush deciduous forest B 6.30%

Blackpoll warbler coniferous forest M 12.56%

Dark-eyed Junco coniferous forest B,M 3.04%

Black-throated Green Warbler mixed forest B,M 7.42%

Tennessee Warbler mixed forest M 10.74%

Golden-crowned Kinglet mixed forest M,B 2.88%

Magnolia Warbler mixed forest M,B 4.19%

Ruby-crowned Kinglet mixed forest M 1.76%

Common Yellowthroat wetland B 2.55%

Information used to compile the bird list for this section included an evaluation of the State, Federal and PIF 

lists which rank birds of concern. Birds known to occur on the refuge that are listed in the Species of Concern 

list had to meet at least one of the following criteria:

■ Appear on any of the local planning documents as a species of concern (Monongahela National 

Forest Plan and the WVCAP)

■ Appear on the USFWS Region 5 Birds of Conservation Concern List (2008)
Appendix A. Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge A-9

Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

■ Appear on a PIF list either as a species of concern in Physiographic Area 12 or within (Draft) 

BCR 28.

■ Appear on other BCR lists within the eastern flyway north of WV with documented occurrences 

during migration.

■ Appear on PIF Continental Concern lists with documented occurrences during migration.

Many of the species are listed in several categories and ranking lists for species of concern while others 

are found in only one category. Important was the refuge’s decision to evaluate the potential importance of 

migration habitat to those species of concern listed in BCR’s to the north of West Virginia. Information from 

the Allegheny Front Bird Migration Observatory (AFBMO) was used to evaluate the abundance of migrating 

birds which fell into northern BCR’s species of conservation concern.

Sources: 

Refuge Status (Season of primary use of refuge habitats) B=breeding; M=migration; W=wintering (Refuge 

and local Data)

USFWSBCC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern, Region 5 (USFWS 2008)

PIF – 12 : Partners in Flight priority breeding species for physiographic area 12 (Partners In Flight 2003).

Draft BCR 28: Partners in Flight priority breeding species for BCR 28 (Appalachian Mountains).

State NHP Rank: WVDNR 2007 (BOLD = Species in Greatest Need of Conservation –SGNC – WVWCAP 

2006)

Allegheny Front Bird Migration Observatory (AFBMO) Percent of Total Capture (1958 - 2006) (% of # of 

captures)

Species of Continental Importance in Eastern Forest Avifaunal Biomes (from PIF Landbird Continental Plan 

2004)

BCR Rule Definitions 

Continental BCR BCR New

Priority Tier Concern Responsibility Concern Rule

Highest HIGH HIGH or MOD HIGH a.

Concern columns both High, Responsibility at least Moderate

High MODERATE HIGH or MOD HIGH b

 HIGH HIGH or MOD MODERATE c

 MODERATE HIGH MODERATE d

One or Two columns High, the other(s) Moderate, none Low

Medium HIGH or MOD LOW * HIGH e

 LOW HIGH or MOD HIGH f

 HIGH LOW * MODERATE g

 MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE h

 LOW HIGH MODERATE i

 HIGH HIGH or MOD LOW j

 MODERATE HIGH LOW k

 (stewardship) LOW HIGH ** LOW l
A-10 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Partners In Flight Ranking Definitions:

Partners In Flight Priority Species Pool Defi nitions

Tier I. High Continental Priority

Species on the PIF Continental Watch List, which are typically of conservation concern throughout their 

range. These are species showing high vulnerability in a number of factors, expressed as any combination of 

high global parameter scores, with AI ≥ 2 (so that species without manageable populations in the region are 

omitted). High level conservation attention warranted.

Tier IA. High Continental Concern + High Regional Responsibility

Species for which this region shares in major conservation responsibility; i.e., conservation in this region is 

critical to the overall health of this species. These species are on the PIF Continental Concern List with AI 

of 3 – 5 for this region, or a high percent population (above threshold in IIB).

Tier IB. High Continental Concern + Low Regional Responsibility

Species for which this region can contribute to rangewide conservation objectives where the species occurs. 

Species on the PIF Continental Concern List with AI of 2 for this region.

Tier II. High Regional Priority

Species that are of moderate continental priority (not on Continental Watch List), but are important to consider for conservation within a region because of various combinations of high parameter scores, as defi ned below; 

total of 7 parameter scores = ≥ 19. 

Tier IIA. High Regional Concern

Species that are experiencing declines in the core of their range and that require immediate conservation action to reverse or stabilize trends. These are species with a combination of high area importance and declining 

(or unknown) population trend; total of 7 parameters ≥ 19, with AI + PT ≥ 8.

Tier IIB. High Regional Responsibility

Species for which this region shares in the responsibility for long-term conservation, even if they are not currently declining or threatened. These are species of moderate overall priority with a disproportionately high 

percentage of their total population in the region; total of 7 parameters ≥ 19, with AI = 5 or % population > 

threshold (see Appendix C).

Tier IIC. High Regional Threats

Species of moderate overall priority that are uncommon in a region and whose remaining populations are 

threatened, usually because of extreme threats to sensitive habitats. These are species with high breeding 

threats scores within the region (or in combination with high nonbreeding threats outside the region); total of 7 

parameters ≥ 19 with TB + TN > 6, or local TB or TN = 5.

Tier III. Additional Federally Listed

Species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act receive conservation attention wherever they occur.

Tier IV. Additional State Listed

Species on state or provincial endangered, threatened, or special concern lists that did not meet any of above 

criteria. These often represent locally rare or peripheral populations.

Tier V. Additional Stewardship Responsibility

Representative or characteristic species for which the region supports a disproportionately high percentage 

of the world population (see Appendix), but which did not meet any of the above criteria. Includes moderateand low-scoring species for which the region has long-term stewardship responsibility, even if these species 

are not of immediate conservation concern.

Tier VI. Local Concern

Species of justifi able local concern or interest. May represent a geographically variable population or be representative of a specifi c habitat or conservation concern.
Appendix A. Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge A-11

Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

GLOBAL RANK

G1 Five or fewer documented occurrences, or very few remaining individuals globally. Extremely rare and 

critically imperiled.

G2 Six to 20 documented occurrences, or few remaining individuals globally. Very rare and imperiled.

G3 Twenty-one to 100 documented occurrences. Either very rare and local throughout its range or found 

locally in a restricted range.

G4 Common and apparently secure globally, though it may be rare in parts of its range, especially at the 

periphery.

G5 Very common and demonstrably secure, though it may be rare in parts of its range, especially at the 

periphery.

GH Historical. May be rediscovered.

GX Believed extirpated. Little likelihood of rediscovery.

T# Rank of subspecies or variety.

STATE RANK

S1 Five or fewer documented occurrences or very few remaining individuals within the state. Extremely rare 

and critically imperiled.

S2 Six to 20 documented occurrences, or few remaining individuals within the state. Very rare and imperiled.

S3 Twenty-one to 100 documented occurrences.

S4 Common and apparently secure with more than 100 occurrences.

S5 Very common and demonstrably secure.

SH Historical. Species which have not been relocated within the last 20 years. May be rediscovered.

SX Believed extirpated. Little likelihood of rediscovery.
Findings of Appropriateness and 

Compatibility Determinations

Appendix B

Pink lady’s slipper

Ken Sturm/USFWS
Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determinations

Finding of Appropriateness Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Finding of Appropriateness Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3

Finding of Appropriateness Commercial Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . . B-5

Finding of Appropriateness Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-9

Finding of Appropriateness Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-11

Finding of Appropriateness Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-15

Finding of Appropriateness Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-19

Finding of Appropriateness Maintenance and Use of NOAA Weather Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-21

Finding of Appropriateness Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-23

Compatibility Determination Public Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-25

Compatibility Determination Public Fishing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-45

Compatibility Determination Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation . . . . . . B-59

Compatibility Determination Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-73

Compatibility Determination Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . . . . . . . . . . B-89

Compatibility Determination Commercial Cross Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses. . . B-99

Compatibility Determination Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-113

Compatibility Determination Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-131

Compatibility Determination Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-143

Compatibility Determination Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-155

Compatibility Determination Maintenance and Use of NOAA Weather Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-163

Compatibility Determination Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-169

Compatibility Determination Maintenance of a Utility Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-175
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-1

Finding of Appropriateness – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Decision criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? ✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other document? ✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the fi rst time the use has been proposed? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources, or is the use benefi cial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? ✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing 

the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreation into the future? 

✔

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to [a]), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to [b], [c], or [d]) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fi sh and wildlife agencies. Yes ✔ No 

When the refuge manager fi nds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must 

justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate ✔ 

Refuge Manager: _____________________________________________ Date: ________________________

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: ___________________________________________ Date: ________________________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1
B-2 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

JUSTIFICATION FOR A FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses 

NARRATIVE

B icycling is an historical recreational use in Canaan Valley that occurred long before the refuge was created, 

and it has occurred on the refuge since its establishment. Many of the refuge’s trails measure at least four 

miles round trip, making them accessible only to experienced hikers. Because bicycling provides easier 

and quicker access for many visitors who may not otherwise visit the refuge’s habitats and other resources, 

bicycling therefore contributes to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural and 

cultural resources. 

Bicycling offers an opportunity to participate in wildlife-dependent recreation, thus contributing to Goal 4 of 

the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)/Environmental Assessment (EA). By permitting bicycling, 

the refuge gives visitors an opportunity to get a closer view of the refuge’s important wetlands and the wildlife 

that depend on these wetlands, thus contributing to the public’s appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of 

refuge habitats and wildlife, which also directly contributes to Goal 4 of the draft CCP/EA. Refuge staff have 

often observed bicyclists with binoculars, cameras, and fishing poles. One refuge staff member even observed 

a hunter hauling out a deer with a bicycle during hunt season. This directly contributes to Objective 4.1 of the 

draft CCP/EA, which strives to provide a high-quality hunting experience by facilitating deer removal from 

remote areas of the refuge. 

Bicycling also contributes to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System because it enables visitors 

to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation in remote areas of the refuge, thus enhancing understanding and 

appreciation of conservation, and benefitting present and future generations of Americans. As stated above, 

bicycling also contributes to the public’s understanding of wetlands, thus contributing to the refuge’s purpose of 

conserving wetlands.

Bicycle travel is limited to designated roads and trails, where road width can accommodate the safe passage 

of other users. Designated roads and trails also have sufficient viewing distance for bicyclists to detect the 

approach of other users and maneuver to accommodate them. Because of these accommodations, bicycling 

occurs concurrently and without conflict with other public uses including priority public uses. No complaints 

have been received.

Bicycling has therefore been found appropriate because it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 

draft CCP/EA and because it contributes to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

resources. 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1

Page 2

Finding of Appropriateness – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-3

Finding of Appropriateness – Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Decision criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? ✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other document? ✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the fi rst time the use has been proposed? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources, or is the use benefi cial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? ✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing 

the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreation into the future? 

✔

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to [a]), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to [b], [c], or [d]) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fi sh and wildlife agencies. Yes ✔ No 

When the refuge manager fi nds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must 

justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate ✔ 

Refuge Manager: _____________________________________________ Date: ________________________

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: ___________________________________________ Date: ________________________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1
B-4 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

JUSTIFICATION FOR A FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses 

NARRATIVE

During much of the winter season when the ground is covered with snow, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing 

are often the only methods available for visitors to engage in priority public uses on the refuge, such as wildlife 

observation and photography. Because cross-country skiing and snowshoeing enable visitors to view the 

refuge’s wildlife and habitat during a time of year when many visitors would not otherwise be able to use refuge 

trails, this use therefore contributes to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural and 

cultural resources. 

Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing also offer opportunities to participate in wildlife-dependent recreation, 

thus contributing to Goal 4 of the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)/Environmental Assessment 

(EA). These uses gives visitors an opportunity to get a closer view of the refuge’s many habitats during a time 

of year when visitors would not otherwise be able to do so. Therefore, this use also contributes to the public 

appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of refuge habitats and wildlife, which also directly contributes to 

Goal 4 of the draft CCP/EA. Refuge staff have often observed visitors skiing and snowshoeing with binoculars 

and cameras. 

Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing also contribute to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(Refuge System) because they enable visitors to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation in remote areas of the 

refuge, thus enhancing understanding and appreciation of conservation, and benefitting present and future 

generations of Americans. As stated above, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing also contribute to the public’s 

understanding of the refuge’s role in wetland protection and wildlife management, thus contributing to the 

public’s understanding of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986) and the Fish and Wildlife Act (1956), 

two purposes of the refuge. 

One of the secondary goals of the Refuge System is to provide opportunities for the public to develop an 

appreciation for wildlife wherever those opportunities are compatible. Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing 

facilitate opportunities for viewing wildlife and habitats with relatively low levels of disturbance. Visitors 

participating in these activities are directly engaged in wildlife observation, education, and photography, all of 

which are identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 as priority public uses of 

the Refuge System. 

The very conditions that make cross-country skiing and snowshoeing possible (winter and snow cover) make 

most other public uses impractical. For this reason, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing occur concurrently 

and without conflict with other public uses. No complaints have been received.

Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing have therefore been found appropriate because they are consistent with 

the goals and objectives of the draft CCP/EA and because they contribute to the public’s understanding and 

appreciation of the refuge’s natural resources. 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1

Page 2

Finding of Appropriateness – Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-5

Finding of Appropriateness – Commercial Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Commercial Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Decision criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? ✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other document? ✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the fi rst time the use has been proposed? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources, or is the use benefi cial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? ✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing 

the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreation into the future? 

✔

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to [a]), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to [b], [c], or [d]) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fi sh and wildlife agencies. Yes ✔ No 

When the refuge manager fi nds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must 

justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate ✔ 

Refuge Manager: _____________________________________________ Date: ________________________

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: ___________________________________________ Date: ________________________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1
B-6 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

JUSTIFICATION FOR A FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Commercial Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses

NARRATIVE

White Grass Touring Center (White Grass) has operated a commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing 

operation in Canaan Valley since 1979. In 1999 the Service acquired the land on which this commercial 

operation exists. Since then, the refuge has been issuing a special use permit to White Grass so it can continue 

its operation on 10 miles of trails located on refuge lands. This activity was found to be compatible under a 

previous compatibility determination dated 1999. 

During much of the winter season when the ground is covered with snow, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing 

are often the only methods available for visitors to engage in priority public uses on the refuge, such as wildlife 

observation and photography. Although non-commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing are available in 

other parts of the refuge, only the commercial-use trails are groomed for these activities. Since many visitors 

will only use groomed trails for these activities, this commercial use facilitates priority public uses for a large 

number of people who would otherwise be unable to view the refuge and its habitats in the wintertime. White 

Grass also facilitates trail access by plowing entrance roads and parking lots. Because commercial crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing enable visitors to view the refuge’s wildlife and habitat during a time of year 

when many visitors would not otherwise be able to use refuge trails, this use therefore contributes to the 

public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural resources. 

Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing gives visitors an opportunity to get a closer view of the refuge’s many 

habitats during a time of year when visitors would not otherwise be able to do so. Therefore, these uses also 

contribute to the public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of Refuge habitats and wildlife, which 

directly contributes to Goal 4 of the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)/Environmental Assessment 

(EA). Specifically, these uses contribute to Objective 4.3 of alternative B in the draft CCP/EA, which says the 

refuge will provide high-quality wildlife observation and nature photography experiences for visitors. 

Furthermore, the majority of wildlife observation, education and interpretation activities that occur during 

the wintertime (outside the visitor’s center) take place at White Grass. In fact, the refuge requires White 

Grass to provide environmental education programs regularly throughout the winter, thus reaching large 

numbers of a unique demographic during otherwise low visitation periods. The White Grass programs require 

minimal oversight from refuge staff and are always well received with typically 40 or more participants. 

This directly contributes to Objective 4.4 of alternative B in the draft CCP/EA, which says the refuge will 

provide environmental education and interpretation opportunities that foster stewardship of the environment. 

It also contributes to Goal 5 of the draft CCP/EA, which encourages the refuge to collaborate with the local 

community and other partners on educational programs on the refuge and the surrounding landscape. 

Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing also contribute to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

because they enable visitors to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation in remote areas of the refuge, thus 

enhancing understanding and appreciation of conservation, and benefitting present and future generations of 

Americans. 

Because of the limitations established for these activities, the seasonal timing, the level of use, and the 

additional stipulations identified in the special use permit, disturbance from allowing commercial cross-country 

skiing and snowshoeing would not have a major impact on wildlife or habitats.

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1

Page 2

Finding of Appropriateness – Commercial Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-7

Commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing occur on 10 miles of trails on the refuge. Concentrating this 

use all but eliminates conflicts with visitors who use trails elsewhere on the refuge for cross-country skiing, 

snowshoeing or other permitted public uses. No complaints have been received. 

Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing have therefore been found appropriate because they are consistent with 

the goals and objectives of the draft CCP/EA and because they contribute to the public’s understanding and 

appreciation of the refuge’s natural resources. 

Finding of Appropriateness – Commercial Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-9

Finding of Appropriateness – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Decision criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? ✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other document? ✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the fi rst time the use has been proposed? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources, or is the use benefi cial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? ✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing 

the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreation into the future? 

✔

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to [a]), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to [b], [c], or [d]) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fi sh and wildlife agencies. Yes ✔ No 

When the refuge manager fi nds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must 

justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate ✔ 

Refuge Manager: _____________________________________________ Date: ________________________

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: ___________________________________________ Date: ________________________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1
B-10 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

JUSTIFICATION FOR A FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses 

NARRATIVE

Horseback riding is an historical, recreational use in Canaan Valley that occurred long before the refuge 

was created, and it has occurred on the refuge since its establishment. Many of the refuge’s trails measure 

at least four miles round trip, making them accessible only to experienced hikers. Because horseback riding 

provides easier and quicker access for many visitors who may not otherwise visit the refuge’s habitats and other 

resources due to the length of some refuge trails, this use therefore contributes to the public’s understanding 

and appreciation of the refuge’s natural and cultural resources. 

Horseback riding also offers an opportunity to participate in wildlife-dependent recreation, thus contributing 

to Goal 4 of the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)/Environmental Assessment (EA). By 

permitting horseback riding, the refuge gives visitors an opportunity to get a closer view of the refuge’s 

important wetlands and the wildlife that depend on these wetlands, thus contributing to the public appreciation, 

understanding, and enjoyment of refuge habitats and wildlife, which directly contributes to Goal 4 of the draft 

CCP/EA. Refuge staff have often observed horseback riders with binoculars and cameras. This use directly 

contributes to Objectives 4.3 and 4.4 of the draft CCP/EA, which proposes to enhance opportunities for wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation. 

Horseback riding also contributes to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System because it enables 

visitors to enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation in remote areas of the refuge, thus enhancing understanding and 

appreciation of conservation, and benefitting present and future generations of Americans. As stated above, 

horseback riding also contributes to the public’s understanding of wetlands, thus building support for the 

refuge’s purpose of conserving wetlands.

Horseback riding is limited to designated roads and trails, where the width can accommodate the safe passage 

of other users. Designated roads and trails also have sufficient viewing distance for horseback riders to detect 

the approach of other users and maneuver to accommodate them. Because of these accommodations, horseback 

riding occurs concurrently and without conflict with other public uses including priority public uses. No 

complaints have been received.

Horseback riding has therefore been found appropriate because it is consistent with the goals and objectives 

of the draft CCP/EA and because it contributes to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural resources. 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1

Page 2

Finding of Appropriateness – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-11

Finding of Appropriateness – Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Decision criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? ✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other document? ✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the fi rst time the use has been proposed? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources, or is the use benefi cial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? ✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing 

the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreation into the future? 

✔

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to [a]), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to [b], [c], or [d]) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fi sh and wildlife agencies. Yes ✔ No 

When the refuge manager fi nds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must 

justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate ✔ 

Refuge Manager: _____________________________________________ Date: ________________________

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: ___________________________________________ Date: ________________________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1
B-12 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

JUSTIFICATION FOR A FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses

NARRATIVE

Since the establishment of the refuge in 1994, the public has been allowed to operate vehicles on two roads 

within the refuge boundary. Forest Road (FR) 80 (1.91 miles) provides vehicular access from Route 32 to U.S. 

Forest Service lands, including the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area. A-Frame Road, which is 4.79 miles, provides 

vehicular access to the northern portion of the refuge (Main Tract). This road is accessed from Highway 93. 

Public access is permitted to points where the roads are closed to protect refuge resources. Total vehicular 

access for these two roads is seven miles. Roads designated for vehicle use permit access to remote parts 

of the refuge and connect the refuge to neighboring public lands. These roads are necessary to facilitate 

permitted public uses and to meet other management objectives.

The majority of visitors access refuge trails by driving their personal vehicles to refuge trailheads, parking in 

a lot and then hiking, walking, bicycling, horseback riding, skiing, or otherwise using the designated trail for 

any of its permitted uses. Because vehicle access allows visitors to access trails for these public uses, and these 

trails allow visitors to view the refuge’s habitats and other resources, vehicle access therefore contributes to the 

public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural and cultural resources. 

Furthermore, because vehicle access facilitates opportunities for participating in public uses, it contributes 

to Goal 4 of the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)/Environmental Assessment (EA), which 

states that visitors of all abilities will enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. Providing access 

to wildlife-dependent recreation will enhance public appreciation, understanding, and enjoyment of refuge 

habitats and wildlife, also stated in Goal 4. Vehicle access plays a particularly important role in facilitating 

deer hunting. Many animals that are hunted are small enough to be carried out of the refuge, but deer are 

often too heavy to be carried or dragged for long distances. Therefore, deer hunters rely on vehicle access 

for hauling out deer. Vehicle access therefore contributes to all the objectives under Goal 4 of the draft CCP 

because it facilitates hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. Vehicle access also contributes to Goal 1 of the draft CCP/EA, which states that the refuge will 

maintain and perpetuate the ecological integrity of the wetland complex by, for example, controlling the deer 

population. Without vehicle access, it would be almost impossible for deer hunters to be successful. 

Permitting vehicle access also allows visitors to access neighboring public lands that permit wildlife-dependent 

uses. Vehicle access therefore also contributes to Goal 5 of the draft CCP/EA because it provides connectivity 

for public use between the refuge and other public lands, a link that will be needed to work with partners on 

management and educational programs on the Refuge and on the surrounding landscapes. 

Vehicle use also contributes to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System because it enables visitors to 

enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation throughout the refuge, thus enhancing understanding and appreciation of 

conservation, and benefitting present and future generations of Americans. By providing access to the refuge’s 

unique resources, such as its wetlands, vehicle use also contributes to the public’s understanding of wetlands, 

thus contributing to building support for the refuge’s purpose of conserving wetlands.

To promote safe vehicle operation, to reduce the risk of vehicular collisions with other users and wildlife, and 

to enhance opportunities for wildlife observation, vehicle travel is subject to a maximum speed of 25 miles per 

hour. Roads designated for vehicle access are also designated for bicycle, horseback, and pedestrian travel. 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1

Page 2

Finding of Appropriateness – Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-13

Conflicts between trail users are commonly reported in the literature (Chavez et al. 1993, Watson et al. 1994, 

Knight and Gutzwiller1995, Ramthun 1995). Conflicts range from concerns over personal safety to certain user 

groups feeling that they should be given priority over other groups based on a past history or other reasons. 

Based on interviews with individuals and user groups, conflicts between groups are not significant in Canaan 

Valley. This is likely due to the relatively low number of users in the area, as compared with heavy use and 

conflicts reported in the literature. 

Providing safe routes for wildlife-oriented activities is an important consideration for refuge roads. Safety 

considerations include ability of multiple modes of access to use a road without creating dangerous conditions, 

ability to maintain a road to allow safe use, and timing of various uses such as wildlife observation and hunting 

activities. Under the current level of use, routes open to vehicles are wide enough to allow multiple modes 

of access to occur without conflicts or safety concerns. Parking is available along refuge road shoulders on 

A-frame road, in turnouts, and at designated refuge parking lots. At the current level of use, these facilities are 

adequate to handle parking in an efficient and safe manner. Because of such stipulations as signage for traffic 

control, speed limits, and designated parking, vehicle use occurs concurrently and without conflict with other 

public uses including priority public uses. No complaints have been received.

Vehicle Use has therefore been found appropriate because it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 

draft CCP/EA and because it contributes to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

resources. 

LITERATURE CITED

Chavez, D.J, P.L. Winter, J.M. Baas. 1993. Recreational mountain biking: a management perspective. Journal 

 of Park and Recreation Administration. 11(3): 29-36.

Knight, R.L. and K. J. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through management and 

 research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 371 pp.

Ramthun, R. 1995. Factors in user group conflict between hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences 

 17:159-169.

Watson, A.E., M.J. Niccolucci and D.R. Williams. 1994. The nature of conflict between hikers and recreational 

 stock users in the John Muir Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research 26(4): 372-385.

Finding of Appropriateness – Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-15

Finding of Appropriateness – Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Decision criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? ✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other document? ✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the fi rst time the use has been proposed? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources, or is the use benefi cial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? ✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing 

the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreation into the future? 

✔

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to [a]), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to [b], [c], or [d]) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fi sh and wildlife agencies. Yes ✔ No 

When the refuge manager fi nds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must 

justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate ✔ 

Refuge Manager: _____________________________________________ Date: ________________________

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: ___________________________________________ Date: ________________________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1
B-16 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

JUSTIFICATION FOR A FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes 

NARRATIVE

The primary areas targeted for beaver trapping would be locations where beaver flooding has caused or 

threatens to cause damage to refuge resources such as flooding of riparian forest habitat (or other sensitive 

plant communities) or refuge roads and trails. Seasonal inventory of beaver activity would be conducted by 

refuge biologists to determine locations for regulated beaver trapping. A majority of the use would occur 

on refuge tracts 50 and 100, also known as the Main Tract. Trapping would focus on the beaver ponds and 

corridors of the Blackwater River and its tributaries. Some trapping may also occur on wetland areas on or 

near Tract 200 (Freeland Tract) on the refuge’s south end. The removal of surplus wildlife such as beaver for 

resource protection is authorized under 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 31.2(f), 31.14, and 31.16. Beaver 

trapping at Canaan Valley refuge is also a refuge management economic activity as described by 50 CFR 25.12.

Trapping addresses the need to preserve and protect plant communities of special interest on the refuge, such 

as the relict boreal vegetation in the Valley. These are the only plant communities on the Valley floor that 

resemble the original red spruce forests, and the refuge has a goal to protect these plant communities. Since 

beaver trapping on the refuge will aid in the protection of selected plant species and plant communities of 

concern, this use will contribute to Goal 1 of the draft Cooperative Conservation Plan (CCP)/Environmental 

Assessment (EA). Goal 1 states that the refuge will maintain and perpetuate the ecological integrity of the 

wetland complex to ensure a healthy and diverse wetland ecosystem providing a full range of natural processes, 

community types, and native floral and faunal diversity. Specifically, beaver trapping contributes to the draft 

CCP/EA’s forested wetlands objective under Goal 1 (Objective 1.2), which states that beaver trapping will be 

used to prevent prolonged flooding of high priority community types. Protecting wetlands also contributes to 

one of the legislative purposes of the refuge, the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986; 16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 

and to the purpose stated in the 1979 Environmental Impact Statement for the creation of the refuge, which 

said creating the refuge was necessary for protecting the integrity of Canaan Valley’s ecosystem and wetlands.

Flooding is also a concern where beaver activity exists adjacent to refuge public use trails. Therefore beaver 

trapping also contributes to Goal 4 of the draft CCP/EA, which ensures that visitors will have the ability to 

enjoy opportunities for wildlife dependent recreation. Since most wildlife dependent uses, such as wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation, take place on refuge trails, beaver 

trapping will contribute to ensuring that refuge trails remain safe and open for these uses. 

Implementation of a regulated trapping program on the refuge also affords a potential mechanism to collect 

survey and monitoring information, or contribute to research on beaver (and other wildlife) occurrence, activity, 

movement, population status, and ecology. Therefore beaver trapping further contributes to Objective 1.2 in 

the draft CCP/EA, which states that the refuge will monitor beaver pond use and develop surveys focused on 

high priority locations to determine potential community loss through beaver activity. 

A group of experienced trappers trained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can be used for their skills 

and local knowledge to perform or assist with valuable management or research functions. Trappers that 

participate in the refuge program would provide assistance with the implementation of structured management 

objectives, such as alleviation or reduction of wildlife damage to habitats and negative species interactions. 

Refuge trappers typically have a stake in proper habitat and wildlife conservation, and protection of the 

ecological integrity of the refuge so that their activity can continue. Accordingly, trappers are valuable 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1

Page 2

Finding of Appropriateness – Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-17

assets to the refuge manager in terms of providing on-site reports concerning the fundamental status of 

habitat, wildlife, and refuge conditions. In this way, public beaver trapping is beneficial to the refuge’s natural 

resources.

A regulated trapping program on the refuge also fosters the trappers’ appreciation of wildlife interpretation, 

wildlife observation, environmental education, a greater understanding of ecological relationships, stewardship 

of natural resources, and inter-generational passage of the methodologies of renewable resource use. Trapping 

is an activity in which family members and friends often participate together and share joint experiences that 

broaden the sense of appreciation for natural resources and ecological awareness (Daigle et al. 1998). 

This use is a self-limiting activity on the refuge because of the lack of public demand for trapping. Over the past 

six years, an average of only three trappers has participated in the public trapping program annually. We do 

not plan to significantly change the level of this use in the future. This low level of use ensures that trapping 

remains a low-impact tool for achieving the refuge’s habitat management goals. 

Public beaver trapping has therefore been found appropriate because it is a low-impact use, it is consistent with 

the goals and objectives of the draft CCP/EA, and it is beneficial to the refuge’s natural resources.

LITERATURE CITED

Daigle, J.J., R.M. Muth, R.R. Zwick, and R.J. Glass. 1998. Socio-cultural dimensions of trapping: a factor 

 analytical study of trappers in six northeastern states. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:614-625.

Finding of Appropriateness – Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes

Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-19

Finding of Appropriateness – Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Decision criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? ✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other document? ✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the fi rst time the use has been proposed? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources, or is the use benefi cial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? ✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing 

the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreation into the future? 

✔

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to [a]), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to [b], [c], or [d]) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fi sh and wildlife agencies. Yes ✔ No 

When the refuge manager fi nds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must 

justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate ✔ 

Refuge Manager: _____________________________________________ Date: ________________________

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: ___________________________________________ Date: ________________________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1
B-20 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

JUSTIFICATION FOR A FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat 

NARRATIVE

Commercial Haying at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge is a refuge management economic activity 

as described by 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 25.12. Commercial haying would be permitted in 

designated grassland management units of the refuge. The configuration of the units and the number of acres 

managed by haying may change from year to year. These units are currently:

 Freeland Tract: 40 acres

 Beall Tract: 113 acres

 Harper Tract: 52 acres

 Cortland Tract: 14 acres 

 Bonner Tract: 9 acres

 Cooper Tract: 74 acres

 Orders Tract: 30 acres

Because of the commercial viability of the hay crop from refuge lands, operators would be solicited through 

open advertisement. If more than one individual responds to the request, the refuge will select the individual 

randomly. The Service will charge the permit holder the fair market value of the standing hay crop as 

authorized by 50 CFR 29.5. The funds received would contribute to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service revenue 

sharing program with county government as described by 50 CFR 34.3(d).

Commercial haying removes vegetation from the field which is otherwise left using refuge brush hog mowing 

equipment. This rank cut vegetation builds a duff layer in the “understory” of the grassland which, over 

time, can make the grassland less suitable for target grassland nesting bird species. Periodic removal of the 

vegetation from the field helps reduce dense duff layer development and can be beneficial for nesting grassland 

bird species such as bobolinks and grasshopper sparrows. In this way, commercial haying contributes to Goal 

3 of the draft Cooperative Conservation Plan (CCP)/Environmental Assessment (EA), which states that the 

refuge will provide and promote through active management a diversity of successional habitats, including 

grasslands, to sustain early successional and shrubland species. Additionally, commercial haying frees up 

staff equipment operators to conduct required management activities elsewhere on the refuge. This saves the 

refuge time and money which may be allocated to different projects. In that sense, this use benefits the refuge’s 

natural and cultural resources. 

Commercial haying has been found to be an appropriate use for helping to manage refuge grassland habitat. 

This use facilitates the management of refuge grassland habitat and is not only a reasonable method, but 

sometimes is a preferred method of cutting grasslands for nesting bird species. Therefore, commercial haying 

contributes directly to the achievement of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission and the specific refuge 

purposes, namely the management of wildlife resources (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. §742f(a)(4)), 

and other management purposes for migratory birds (Migratory Bird Conservation Act,16 U.S.C. §715d).

Commercial haying has therefore been found appropriate because it is consistent with the goals and objectives 

of the draft CCP/EA and because it benefits the refuge’s natural and cultural resources. 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1

Page 2

Finding of Appropriateness – Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-21

Finding of Appropriateness – Maintenance and Use of NOAA Weather Station

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Maintenance and Use of NOAA Weather Station

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Decision criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? ✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other document? ✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the fi rst time the use has been proposed? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources, or is the use benefi cial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? ✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing 

the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreation into the future? 

✔

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to [a]), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to [b], [c], or [d]) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fi sh and wildlife agencies. Yes ✔ No 

When the refuge manager fi nds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must 

justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate ✔ 

Refuge Manager: _____________________________________________ Date: ________________________

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: ___________________________________________ Date: ________________________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1
B-22 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

JUSTIFICATION FOR A FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Maintenance and Use of NOAA Weather Station 

NARRATIVE

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather station was installed in 2000 

on the Beall Tract. The purpose was to establish and use an air quality monitoring and research site by 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA will be using this site for climate 

research and monitoring. The use of climate data for research purposes fits into the description of 603 FW1 

1.10(D), Specialized Uses. Specifically under 1.10 (D)(4) research is actively encouraged with partners. The 

establishment of a NOAA air quality monitoring and research site will result in negligible impacts to wildlife 

and will provide important climatological data. This information will be useful in determining the impacts of 

air and waterborne pollutants on the ecological communities in Canaan Valley and the mid-Atlantic Highlands. 

Information generated by the NOAA research station has been useful for reports generated by the refuge and 

other research partners requiring comprehensive atmospheric data. Although the collection of climate data 

may not be used regularly at this time, a record of specific data related to climate, atmospheric deposition and 

levels of other pollutants will likely provide valuable data for evaluating the impacts of atmospheric pollution 

and climate change on the resources the refuge is charged to protect. This use is therefore beneficial to the 

refuge’s natural resources. The collection of this data will also enable the refuge to better achieve the habitat 

management goals and objectives (goals 1, 2, and 3 and all their objectives) in alternative B of the draft CCP/

EA, because this data will help the refuge staff make informed decisions. Furthermore, because this use 

could aid in the protection of fish and wildlife resources, it promotes the fulfillment of the refuge purpose of 

protecting fish and wildlife resources (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f (a) (4)).

Because of the limited access and restrictions on maintenance operations this use will not affect the refuge’s 

ability to protect, conserve, and manage wildlife and their habitats (grassland species), nor will it impair 

existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reduce the potential to provide quality, compatible, wildlifedependent recreation uses into the future. 

The maintenance of the weather station has therefore been found appropriate because it is beneficial to 

the refuge’s natural resources and it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the draft Cooperative 

Conservation Plan/Environmental Assessment. 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1

Page 2

Finding of Appropriateness – Maintenance and Use of NOAA Weather Station
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-23

Finding of Appropriateness – Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Decision criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? ✔

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? ✔

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? ✔

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? ✔

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other document? ✔

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the fi rst time the use has been proposed? ✔

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? ✔

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? ✔

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources, or is the use benefi cial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? ✔

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing 

the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, wildlife-dependent 

recreation into the future? 

✔

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to [a]), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to [b], [c], or [d]) may not be found appropriate. If the 

answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fi sh and wildlife agencies. Yes ✔ No 

When the refuge manager fi nds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must 

justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate ✔ 

Refuge Manager: _____________________________________________ Date: ________________________

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: ___________________________________________ Date: ________________________

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1
B-24 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

JUSTIFICATION FOR A FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel

NARRATIVE

Research by non-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) personnel is conducted by colleges, universities, 

federal, state, and local agencies, non-governmental organizations, and qualified members of the general 

public to further the understanding of the natural environment and to improve the management of the refuge’s 

natural resources. Much of the information generated by the research is applicable to management on and 

near the refuge. In many cases research by non-Service personnel ensures the perception of unbiased and 

objective information gathering which can be important when using the research to develop management 

recommendations for politically sensitive issues. Additionally, universities and other federal partners can 

access equipment and facilities unavailable to refuge staff for analysis of data or biological samples. This 

use is therefore beneficial to the refuge’s natural and cultural resources. Research conducted by non-Service 

personnel will also enable the refuge to better achieve the habitat management goals and objectives (goals 1, 

2, and 3 and all their objectives) in the draft Cooperative Conservation Plan (CCP)/Environmental Assessment 

(EA) because this data will help the refuge staff make informed decisions. In addition, because this use 

could aid in the protection of fish and wildlife resources, it promotes the fulfillment of the refuge purpose of 

protecting fish and wildlife resources (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f (a) (4)). Research purposes 

fits into the description of 603 FW1 1.10(D), Specialized Uses. Specifically, research with partners is actively 

encouraged under 1.10 (D)(4).

The Service will encourage and support research and management studies on refuge lands that will improve 

and strengthen natural resource management decisions. The refuge manager will encourage and seek 

research relative to approved refuge objectives that clearly improves land management and promotes adaptive 

management. Priority research addresses information that will better manage the nation’s biological resources 

and is generally considered important to: agencies of the Department of Interior; the Service; the National 

Wildlife Refuge System; and state fish and game agencies, and that addresses important management issues or 

demonstrates techniques for management of species and/or habitats. 

The refuge will also consider research for other purposes which may not be directly related to refuge-specific 

objectives, but contributes to the broader enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and management of 

native populations of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their natural diversity within the region or flyway. These 

proposals must comply with the Service’s compatibility policy.

If a research project occurs during the refuge hunting season, special precautions will be required and 

enforced to ensure the researchers’ health and safety. If conducted according to refuge-specific stipulations 

(see compatibility determination for this use), this use will not affect the refuge’s ability to protect, conserve 

and manage wildlife and their habitats, nor will it impair existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reduce the potential to provide quality, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation uses into the future. 

Research therefore has been found appropriate because it is beneficial to the refuge’s natural and cultural 

resources and it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the draft CCP/EA. 

603 FW 1

Exhibit 1

Page 2

Finding of Appropriateness – Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-25

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE

Public Hunting

REFUGE NAME

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED

August 11, 1994

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY

The establishment of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was first approved in an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) released on May 30, 1979. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

decided to await the outcome of litigation surrounding a proposed storage hydroelectric facility before pursuing 

any further action. The approval of the refuge was affirmed by the Service in a 1994 Final Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact on July 11, 1994, which confirmed the adequacy of the 

previously-approved 1979 EIS. The refuge was officially established when the first tract of land was acquired 

on August 11, 1994. The Service has acquired lands for the Canaan Valley refuge under the following 

authorities:

1. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)]

2. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901b]

3. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 [16 U.S.C. 715d]

REFUGE PURPOSES 

The refuge was established to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and the continued availability 

of its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources to the citizens of West Virginia and the United States (USFWS 

1979, 1994). Additional refuge purposes as derived from the legislative authorities are as follows:

(1) “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f (a)(4)); 

(2) “... for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide 

and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions.” 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986; 16 U.S.C. 3901(b)); and,

(3) “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929; 16 U.S.C. 715d).

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION 

To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for 

the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 

16 U.S.C § 668dd (a)(2). 

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
B-26 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use? 

The use is hunting according to state seasons and refuge regulations, including white-tailed deer, black bear, 

wild turkey, ruffed grouse, mourning dove, waterfowl, coot, rail, gallinule, coyote, Wilson’s snipe, American 

woodcock, rabbit, hare, squirrel, red fox, grey fox, raccoon, bobcat, woodchuck, opossum, and striped skunk. 

Hunting is a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). Under Service policy, 

hunting is an acceptable and traditional form of recreation, particularly in areas where it has been historically 

practiced.

(b) Where would the use be conducted? 

Hunting would occur in designated areas on Service-owned lands. Map B-1 illustrates which areas are open for 

hunting. We will decide on a case-by-case basis whether to open newly acquired tracts for hunting. 

In the draft Cooperative Conservation Plan (CCP)/Environmental Assessment (EA) we propose changes in 

rifle zones for deer hunting which would permit rifle hunting from tree stands in certain areas where it is not 

currently permitted. The draft CCP/EA also proposes to close the Freeland Tract to hunting, except for special 

hunts as designated by the refuge manager.

(c) When would the use be conducted? 

Hunting would occur according to West Virginia state seasons and refuge-specific regulations. Refuge 

regulations state that the refuge is closed to hunting between March 1st and August 31st of each year, except 

for the spring turkey season (50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 32.68).

(d) How would the use be conducted? 

Hunting would be conducted within the framework of West Virginia state regulations, and would be subject to 

refuge-specific regulations, according to the federal regulations published in Title 50 of the CFR §32. A full 

description of the refuge hunt program can be found in the refuge Hunting Management Plan (USFWS 2007a) 

and the full National Environmental Policy Act analysis can be found in the hunting EA (USFWS 2007b). 

These documents are available in electronic from the Region 5 Northeast Planning website (http://www.fws.

gov/northeast/planning/), and in hard copy from the refuge. 

In alternative B, the Service’s preferred alternative of the draft CCP/EA, we propose some modifications to 

the deer hunting program to increase the harvest of deer on the refuge. For example, the refuge would provide 

a shuttle service to facilitate the removal of white-tailed deer along the Middle Valley trail during the first 

week of deer gun season. This action would be taken only to increase deer harvest and to decrease density 

and reduce deer browse pressure on native plants and managed early successional habitat. All-terrain vehicles 

(ATV) would be operated only by refuge staff or ATV-trained refuge volunteers. The number of trips per day is 

anticipated to be three trips with two ATV’s. Therefore a total maximum number of trips for a five day period 

(first week of deer gun season) would be 30. The route will be along only the Middle Valley Trail between Sand 

Run and A-Frame road. This section of trail is an old logging road which has been used as a public trail for 

bicycles, horse and pedestrian use since the acquisition of the Main Tract in 2002. Also in alternative B, the 

refuge proposes to increase the amount of area open for the deer rifle season on the refuge. 

Also new to the hunt program in alternative B would be the closing of the Freeland Tract to regular 

public hunting, with the exception of refuge-authorized special public hunts such as youth or accessible 

hunts, consistent with state regulations. This tract consists of 86 acres of which 32 acres are managed 

grassland bound on two sides by a public road. A small stand of mixed fir, spruce, and hemlock consisting of 

approximately 9.4 acres is the main hunted area within this tract. 

The Freeland Tract also contains a series of small beaver ponds fed by a bubbling spring which resists freezing 

during winter months. This spring provides waterfowl resting and feeding habitat when other areas on the 

refuge are frozen. Refuge outreach and education has focused on the Freeland Tract and an accessible board 

walk is being constructed for observation, education, interpretation, and photography purposes. Additionally, 

the Freeland Tract is the most popular public access to the refuge and currently provides handicapped access 

via a boardwalk to the spring for priority public uses other than hunting. Closing this small area to waterfowl 

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-27

hunting would provide visitors with important viewing areas for waterfowl and other waterbirds, especially 

during winter months when other areas on the refuge are either frozen or inaccessible due to snow. Closing 

this area would also reduce the impact of waterfowl hunting on other priority public uses. Allowing refugeauthorized special hunts on this tract would create a unique and quality hunting experience for youth or 

disabled hunters.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? 

Hunting is one of the six priority public uses as define by the National Wildlife Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. If compatible, hunting is to receive 

enhanced consideration over other general public uses in refuge planning and management. Hunting can also 

be a valuable management tool to help keep wildlife populations in check and to protect refuge habitats from, 

for example, over-browsing by deer. 

The Service encourages the development of hunting programs on national wildlife refuges when they are 

compatible with the refuge’s legal purposes, biologically sound, affordable, properly coordinated with other 

refuge programs, and fit the Service description of a quality hunt. “Quality hunts” are defined as those 

which are planned, supervised, conducted, and evaluated to promote positive hunting values and ethics such 

as fair chase and sportsmanship. The Service strives to provide hunting opportunities on refuges which are 

superior to those available on other public or private lands, and to provide participants with reasonable harvest 

opportunities, un-crowded conditions, fewer conflicts among hunters, relatively undisturbed wildlife, and 

limited interference from, or dependence on, mechanized aspects of the sport (USFWS 1996).

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

The hunt program is administered by the deputy refuge manager, resource impacts are monitored by the 

wildlife biologist, visitor use is monitored by a park ranger and outdoor recreation planner, and maintenance 

and repair is performed by a heavy equipment operator. Additional resource protection is provided by a refuge 

law enforcement officer and deputy refuge manager.

Refuge vehicles are needed to effectively administer the use. The heavy equipment operator performs the 

maintenance and repair of refuge roads, parking lots, and associated structures. The refuge has heavy 

equipment including a motor grader, dump truck, bulldozer, backhoe, 4x4 farm tractor, bobcat, and front-end 

loader. 

Annual costs associated with the administration of public hunting on the refuge are estimated below:

Review of program, administration and consultation with staff:

■ Refuge Manager GS-13 for 5 days = $1,360.00

Road maintenance and repair, sign installation and kiosk construction and repair, maintaining parking 

areas, picking up and removing litter associated with hunting activities, and providing deer shuttle to 

Middle Ridge.

■ WG-10 Equipment Operator for 10 work days = $2,725.6

Planning and supervising staff to monitor the use and its effects on environment and other visitors

■ GS-11/12 Deputy Refuge Manager for 3 work days = $836.16

Resource protection, monitoring hunting activities and interactions with other users, visitor services, 

sign maintenance, litter removal

■ GS-9 Law Enforcement Officer for 40 work days = $9,830.40

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
B-28 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Monitoring habitat impacts from hunting activities, providing deer shuttle to Middle Ridge.

■ GS-12 Wildlife Biologist for 15 work days (deer shuttle, data analysis and 

interagency coordination) = $5,512.80

■ GS-11 Wildlife Biologist for 10 work days (deer shuttle, data analysis, reporting) = $2,972.80

■ GS-7 Biological Sciences Technician for 5 work days =$1,004.40

Providing information to the public about public hunting on the refuge

■ GS-11 Outdoor Recreation Planner for 10 work days = $3,530.40

Issuing hunting permits and maintaining database

■ GS-4 Administrative Assistant for 130 work days = $18,844.80

Motor vehicle fuel/law enforcement patrols = $1,000.00

Heavy equipment fuel = $250.00

Kiosk construction, signs, printing maps and information = $2,500.00

Grand Total Estimated Costs = $50,367.36

FY 2009 Budget Allocations:

 Employee Salaries and benefits = $624,039.53

 Fixed costs (utilities, fuel, administrative) = $211,415.23

 Base maintenance = $50,000

 Discretionary Funds (maps, printing, etc.) = $62,243.32

 Total Available Funds for FY 2009 = $947,698.08

The resources necessary to provide and administer this use at its current level and at the level described in 

alternative B of the draft CCP/EA are now available and we expect them to continue in the future subject to 

the availability of appropriated funds. Staff time associated with administration of this use is spent maintaining 

associated road infrastructure, collecting visitor use data, analyzing use patterns, monitoring potential impacts 

of the use on refuge resources, and providing information to the public about the use.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE

Effects on Air and Water Quality:

Air quality and water quality impacts would be minimal and only due to refuge visitors’ automobile emissions 

and run-off on roads and trails. These effects would not only come from hunters but from a majority of users 

of wildlife-dependent recreation on the refuge. The effects of these refuge-related activities, as well as other 

management activities, on overall air and water quality in the region would be negligible, compared to the 

effects from power plants, industrial centers, and non-refuge vehicle traffic. Therefore implementation of the 

proposed action would not impact adjacent landowners or uses beyond the constraints already implemented 

under existing state standards and laws.

Effects on Vegetation:

The physical effects on vegetation from hunting various game species on the refuge are expected to be minimal. 

The most destructive effects would result from vehicular traffic. ATVs would not be allowed on the refuge. 

Other vehicles are restricted to designated roadways. Hunter use is generally dispersed over large areas. 

Hunters would have little to no impact on the vegetation.

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-29

Positive, indirect effects on the vegetation would result from a reduction in the white-tailed deer population. 

The impacts of dense deer populations on forest regeneration and the composition and diversity of the 

herbaceous understory have been well documented (Tierson, et al., 1966; Behrend, et al., 1970; Tilghman, 1989) 

and observed in Canaan Valley. Opening the refuge to deer hunting would at least maintain the habitat as it is 

now and prevent further degradation due to overbrowsing. Well-managed hunting can effectively control deer 

and produce dramatic changes in the forest vegetation (Behrend, et al., 1970). The impact of deer hunting on 

the vegetation would be positive and result in better regeneration of forest canopy species and an increase in 

the diversity of the herbaceous understory. In summary, there would be few if any negative impacts from this 

use on the refuge’s vegetation, but there would be beneficial impacts from the decrease of deer browse on the 

refuge’s vegetation due to the decrease in the number of deer on refuge lands. 

Possible negative cumulative impacts of the proposed activity include temporary trampling of vegetation and 

light soil erosion. Spring turkey season, lasting four weeks from mid-April to mid-May, could cause some 

trampling effects to growing plants especially in wet areas. There are few turkey hunters on the refuge. Most 

are hunting during the fall while other game species are in season. Other hunt seasons occur when the ground 

is either frozen, covered in snow or when plants are dormant. For these reasons, cumulative impacts to plant 

communities and soils are not likely to be significant during either the fall or spring hunting seasons.

Effects on Soils: 

Soils can be compacted and eroded as a result of continued foot traffic. All soils associated with wetland 

habitats were rated as either high or very high in their potential for compaction (Bell 2002). Impacts to soils 

would likely be greater during the growing season due to the greater soil moisture content at that time of 

year. The Mauch Chunk-derived soil in Canaan Valley is particularly vulnerable to mechanical erosion when 

the vegetation has been removed (Rizzo 2002). If compacted, Mauch Chunk soils can facilitate rapid water 

runoff that accelerates erosion down slope (Rizzo 2002). Field investigations of trails in Canaan Valley have 

documented extensive damage displaying classic examples of the erosive nature of Mauch Chunk-derived soils 

after years of unregulated use. Although foot travel did not create highly erosive conditions in this soil type, 

lug soles of hiking boots could perpetuate the problem. 

It is anticipated that minor impacts to soils would occur as a result of allowing hunting access on the refuge. 

Erosion potential will likely vary during the season based on soil moisture and temperatures. During much 

of the hunting season, soils may be frozen or covered in snow, thereby reducing the impacts greatly. At the 

current use level, impacts to soils (erosion, compaction) are not likely to be significant. 

Effects on Hydrology: 

Trails can affect the hydrology of an area, primarily through alteration of drainage patterns. Bartgis and 

Berdine (1991) note that roads and trails can divert water from their original drainage patterns in Canaan 

Valley. This can result in some drainages becoming dry while others accelerate erosion by being forced to 

carrying more water. Zeedyk (2002) documented many instances in Canaan Valley where existing trails were 

channeling water away from historic wetlands and, in some cases, causing erosion and sedimentation of bog 

and other wetland communities. These problems have profoundly if not irreversibly altered the extent, depths, 

characteristics and function of the wetlands on the Main Tract (Zeedyk 2002).The effects of these trails and 

roads were a direct result of vehicle use and road construction prior to the refuge’s acquisition of the property. 

Since then measures have been taken to remediate erosion and sedimentation issues, particularly on trails 

that are open to public access. Furthermore, since the refuge has now acquired lands within the acquisition 

boundary, it can prohibit vehicle use and road construction in certain areas so as to minimize these types of 

impacts. 

Because hunters are not restricted to utilizing only trails designed for other public use activities they may 

encounter areas which have not yet been restored to prevent continued erosion and subsequent sedimentation. 

However, these effects are considered minimal due to the fact that hunters are generally dispersed, which 

reduces repeated erosive actions on soils. Also, hunters are not permitted to use vehicles off designated refuge 

roads, and soils will be frozen during much of the hunt season, thus reducing the potential for erosion and 

downstream sedimentation.

Maintenance will be required to create adequate and proper drainage so that existing routes do not impact 

local hydrology. These impacts are not likely to be significant in relation to other public uses permitted on 

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
B-30 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

refuge trails. Off-trail foot traffic, if concentrated, could remove vegetation, compact soil and cause water 

channeling and pooling. Areas would be monitored for these effects and if impacts are noticed, designated 

areas would be temporarily closed for restoration. 

Effects on Wildlife: Game Species:

Ruffed Grouse. Historical population trends are not well documented, but the consensus is that most regional 

trends have been downward, and that the current levels may be a temporary plateau. Results from the West 

Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR) bow hunter survey show that the average number of grouse 

seen per 100 hours was 5.52 in Tucker County over the ten year period from 1995 - 2005. This exceeded the 

statewide average of 3.82 grouse flushed per 100 hours. The ten year trend of grouse flushes in Tucker County 

indicates a slight downward trend. The decrease in amount of early successional habitat favored by grouse is 

the major factor affecting grouse populations. Population increases are most likely tied to early successional 

habitat management (Norman et al 2004).

A six year study was begun in 1996 in five States (West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky and Ohio). 

The Appalachian Cooperative Grouse Research Project was completed with a final report issued in 2004. 

The results concluded that hunting mortality was compensatory. Based on these results and since the grouse 

population has traditionally supported hunting in the valley, little impact on the grouse population from hunting 

on the refuge is expected.

Rabbits and Hare. Population status of the three species of lagomorphs occurring in the valley is varied. The 

eastern cottontail population is secure, but the Appalachian cottontail population is less well known, and the 

snowshoe hare is at the southern end of its range. Michael’s (1974) study of hunter use in the valley showed very 

few rabbit or hare hunters, but his study did not extend into January and February, the prime rabbit-hunting 

period in West Virginia. Based on hunter information from 2002 to 2005, only 16 rabbits and one hare were 

harvested on the refuge. The apparent low harvest from refuge land indicates that despite low populations of 

Appalachian cottontail and snowshoe hare, it is highly unlikely that the harvest of these species will have any 

direct significant impact to local or regional populations.

Squirrels. Gray and fox squirrels prefer oak and hickory forests, neither of which exists in Canaan Valley. 

Squirrel populations and reproductive success have been found to be very dependent upon the annual mast crop 

(Nixon, et al., 1975; Weigl, et al., 1989). The occurrence of these squirrels on the refuge is uncommon; therefore, 

any take of squirrels is expected to be incidental to hunting other upland game species, and as such, would have 

little impact on the population of gray or fox squirrels.

Raccoon, Foxes (Red and Gray), and Bobcat. The refuge follows the state’s regulations for raccoon, red and 

gray fox, and bobcat. Though no county-specific data are available, except for bobcat, healthy populations 

of these four species exist in the State (Brown, unpublished data, Foster pers.com. 2007). In West Virginia, 

raccoon populations from 1992-2005 were considered stable to slightly increasing (Rogers 2004). Hunter survey 

information from the refuge indicate that from 2002 to 2005 a total of only 10 people hunted raccoon on the 

refuge with an annual average harvest of approximately 16 animals. Following state regulations and based on 

county and statewide data indicating at least stable populations, the Service concludes that it is highly unlikely 

that the harvest of these species will have any direct significant impact to local or regional populations.

The populations of these four species are stable and healthy, and the harvest on the refuge has been and is 

expected to remain small. Most fox and bobcat hunters are hunting other species as well, so there would be 

little additional disturbance to vegetation or non-target wildlife. Canaan Valley is not a prime raccoon hunting 

area, so raccoon hunting is expected to be minimal. Because raccoon hunters use dogs and hunt at night, 

raccoon hunting will be closely monitored by being managed under a special use permit (SUP). Stipulations of 

the SUP include restricting dog numbers to minimize potential impacts to other wildlife.

Coyote. Coyote hunting in West Virginia has increased and a variety of methods are used because of their 

increasing numbers and their reputation as livestock predators (Bonwell, 1996). Coyote harvest in the Valley 

is expected to be small, and their take likely incidental to deer hunting. Since coyote hunting would generally 

be opportunistic, little to no additional disturbance to vegetation or non-target wildlife is anticipated. Under 

current state regulations the Service concludes that it is highly unlikely that the harvest of these species will 

have any direct significant impact to local or regional populations. 

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-31

Opossum, Skunk, and Woodchuck. Hunting for opossum, skunk, and woodchuck in West Virginia is most 

often incidental to hunting other species. Some wildlife species compensate for decreased number (harvest) 

by increasing reproductive output. Davis, et al. (1964), found that removal of large numbers of woodchucks 

from a population resulted in a decrease of other mortality factors on the population, increased birth rate, 

and increases in immigration. Thus, the population size remained stable even though three times as many 

woodchucks were removed from the treatment as from the control area. The populations of striped skunk, 

opossum and woodchuck are stable and healthy, and the harvest on the refuge is expected to be very small, and 

primarily incidental. Therefore little disturbance to vegetation or non-target wildlife is anticipated. Hunting of 

spotted skunks, a rare species in the state, and all weasels would be prohibited.

White-tailed Deer. Deer are one of the few species on the refuge that breed during hunt season. Deer are 

in rut in October and November.Hunting activities occur when deer are courting and mating. However, 

population estimates received by the state indicate that the deer population is not at risk and, if anything, there 

is an abundance of deer in Canaan Valley. 

The refuge would follow the state’s regulations and have a hunt in various forms for about two and one-half 

months from mid-October through the end of December. Deer in Canaan Valley are abundant and are harming 

other components of the ecosystem. The Service has concluded that a deer management program maximizing 

the take of antlerless deer would benefit both white-tailed deer through reduction of overpopulation and the 

habitat through reduction of over-browsing, thus benefitting both vegetation and other wildlife species. 

Overabundance of deer can produce long-term negative effects such as potential disease epizootics (Demarais 

et al. 2000), increase in automobile accident rates, browsing pressure on landscapes, vegetation, and crops, 

and severe habitat degradation (Cypher and Cypher 1988). Overbrowsing by high deer populations is a major 

concern of the refuge. Overbrowsing affects the abundance and distribution of vegetative species and has 

continued effects on the composition of forest canopy for a long time after the deer herd is reduced. This is not 

a concern for grasslands, as cover would quickly regenerate (Porter 1991), though species composition may be 

permanently altered. The effects on vegetation composition and forest regeneration are of great concern as we 

seek to maintain and restore spruce and balsam fir ecosystems and understory forest communities for refuge 

focal species and rare or sensitive plant communities. Pastures and old fields are vulnerable to overgrazing 

when deer densities are high because they contain more and higher quality forage, especially in spring and 

summer (Johnson et al.1995). Cumulative effects of grazing over successive years may result in reduced plant 

reproduction and growth (Augustine and Frelich 1998) and height (Anderson 1994), which exposes sensitive 

plants and places them at risk of extirpation (Augustine and Frelich 1998). The refuge is concerned about the 

impacts this phenomenon may have on migratory birds and on the existing rare plant communities found on the 

refuge. 

Safety is a major consideration related to deer hunting on the refuge. The southern end of the refuge has 

numerous homes, businesses, and housing developments either within or immediately adjacent to the refuge 

acquisition boundary. Many area residents have expressed concern over deer hunting with rifles on the 

refuge. To address these concerns, “no rifle zones” will be delineated, within which only archery, shotgun, and 

muzzle loader hunting would be allowed, and safety zones will be delineated within which hunting will not be 

permitted.

The refuge proposes to promote increased deer harvest through a refuge-run shuttle system to help with deer 

removal. Impacts of this proposal are associated with the ATV activity and include increased soil erosion along 

the Middle Valley trail especially during wet conditions which are typical during the deer gun season. The 

proposed route is a partially- vegetated and annually-maintained public use trail. The use of ATV’s during 

the week of deer gun season will likely increase the amount of trail maintenance required to ensure that soil 

erosion is minimized. 

Additionally, the route will have to cross a section of Glade Run along the Middle Valley Trail. Crossing this 

section of stream with ATV’s can cause stream bank erosion, siltation, and oil and gas pollution within Glade 

Run. There is also the potential of causing the stream bed itself to erode, thereby lowering the gradient of the 

stream across this section and increasing velocity of flow. This can cause erosion up and downstream from 

the crossing site. The refuge will minimize the effect of ATV use by hardening the banks and stream bottom 

of Glade Run with native stone to permit limited access for deer removal. Middle Valley Trail will also have 

sections hardened and/or re-graded to reduce the effects of ATV use during the removal operations. Initial 

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
B-32 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

work on placing rock for stream bank and bed hardening will be time and labor intensive, however it should 

require only minimal annual maintenance once complete. Hardening of stream banks and crossings will be 

complete prior to conducting the shuttle operation. refuge staff will monitor stream crossings and sensitive 

areas along the Middle Valley Trail to ensure that preventive maintenance operations are completed prior to 

each fall’s deer gun season.

It is anticipated that the short duration of ATV use along the Middle Valley Trail and through the Glade Run 

crossing along with limited number of trips per day will not cause significant impacts to soil erosion, siltation, 

or pollution of refuge resources. The expected increase in deer harvested will improve conditions within the 

interior of the refuge through reduced browse damage. This positive impact will likely offset potential negative 

effects of the use of ATV’s for deer removal. In order for this use to be compatible there are several stipulations 

listed below which must be met. However, if deer harvest numbers do not increase significantly or if there are 

significant impacts to refuge resources through the use of ATV’s (to remove deer along Middle Valley Trail), 

this use may be terminated.

It is anticipated that allowing rifle use on Reichle and Orders tracts and allowing rifle use from tree stands on 

Herz, Cooper, Cortland, and Schaffer tracts would increase deer harvest and therefore have a positive impact 

on the refuge’s plant communities. The refuge consulted with the WVDNR and other law enforcement officials 

on the safety considerations of these actions. According to the WVDNR, state safety codes adequately protect 

hunters and other refuge visitors during hunt seasons. Rifle hunting was permitted on these tracts prior to 

refuge acquisition and hunting was managed only under state guidelines with no known reported incidents. 

The smaller tracts being opened for rifle use are being permitted only from elevated stands which will further 

reduce the risk of hunting activities to the general public and other hunters. The areas in which these zones 

are proposed are in the southern end of the valley and this may help reduce high deer densities in that part of 

the refuge. This would also increase the available areas on the refuge that are open for hunting, would provide 

more hunting opportunities, could increase hunter satisfaction, and could encourage hunters who might not 

otherwise participate. Working with our state partners and other surrounding landowners to help reduce the 

deer herd could provide additional opportunities for hunting, and may be effective in reducing deer populations. 

The refuge will close the Freeland Tract to general public hunting to prevent conflicts with other user groups 

during the hunt season. The Freeland Tract is the refuge’s most visited area and is also the only site which 

provides accessible trails. At only 86 acres, the closure of this tract will not affect the quality of the refuge 

hunting program and accounts for less than 1% of the total land area open for hunting on the refuge. However, 

due to the refuge’s concern with deer impacts to plant communities, particularly the rare conifer wetland 

community on the Freeland Tract, we will permit special hunts. These hunts may include youth hunts and 

a special hunt for the physically disabled. We may also permit limited open hunts during the regular season 

should browse damage indicate that closure of this tract has exacerbated deer damage. Decisions on types of 

hunts permitted on the Freeland Tract will be made annually.

Black Bear. Black bear hunting on the refuge follows the state’s regulations with the exceptions that on 

designated “no rifle zones,” only archery would be allowed, and the gun season would be approximately one 

week shorter than the state season. The start of the gun season would be delayed until the close of antlerless 

deer season, so as not to impede the take of deer in order to reduce the deer herd. This would also give more 

opportunity for pregnant female bears to den before the start of the refuge hunting season.

Annual bear harvest in the state has been increasing dramatically since the mid 1980s. However, Tucker 

County only comprised an average of 11% of the total number of bear taken from 1966 to 2000. Out of that, 

an average of only 1.25 bear per year were reported taken in Canaan Valley, Cabin Mountain and Canaan 

Mountain combined from 1974 to 2000 (Michael 2002). It is likely that the large wetland habitat within the 

Valley and lack of road access make hunting bears less popular on the refuge than in surrounding areas of 

Tucker County. Refuge hunter harvest information indicates that only 1 bear has been reported taken from the 

refuge from 2002 to2005. 

Bear hunting with hounds would be permitted on the less accessible portions of the refuge. A study in Virginia 

focused on the effects of hunting with hounds on the bear population. The researchers compared litter size, 

cub survival rates, and den weights in two populations: one that is hunted with dogs and one that is not hunted. 

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-33

Results indicate that there are no significant differences in cub production or body condition between hunted 

and non-hunted populations of bear in Virginia (Higgins 1997). 

The impact on the refuge population of black bear will not be significant due to the low number of bear taken 

each year. Similarly, the cumulative impact of bear hunting on the refuge will not be significant when combined 

with bear hunting impacts throughout the county or state. Less than 1.5% of all bear harvests in the state were 

taken from Canaan Valley habitats and an average of 8.2% of bear harvests from the County were from Canaan 

Valley from 1974 to 2000 (Michael 2002). These low harvest rates indicate that by continuing bear harvest on 

the refuge (approximately 50% of the Valley’s area) it is highly unlikely that the harvest of these species will 

have any significant impact to local or regional populations.

Wild Turkey. Wild turkey hunting follows the state’s regulations. West Virginia has two turkey seasons: a 

spring season when only gobblers (males) are harvested, and a fall season when either sex may be legal game. 

Since turkeys are polygamous, spring gobbler seasons have little impact on breeding success and size of turkey 

populations. Fall hunting is allowed when a population is sufficiently large to withstand increased mortality. 

Through extensive research and management efforts, the state has restored the turkey population throughout 

its historical range. The state also closely monitors fall hunting impacts on population levels. Therefore, hunting 

on the refuge should not impact the turkey population. Both spring gobbler and fall either-sex seasons will be 

allowed on the refuge.

Migratory Birds, Including Waterfowl (Ducks and Geese). Fall is the season for bird migration, and hunting 

may disturb their resting and foraging during this critical time. The impacts from hunting are not known, but 

related to the frequency, type, and duration of the disturbance. For example, a woodcock hunter with a dog is 

more likely to flush woodcock (and other migratory bird species), than a woodcock hunter without a dog. If one 

area is hunted more than another, woodcock using cover in that area will be disrupted more frequently. Also, if 

an area is hunted in the morning and again in the evening, the duration and effect of disturbance is increased. 

Migrating and wintering raptors such as ruffed legged hawks may be hunting and roosting in upland and 

wetland habitats. Hunting activity may cause these birds to unnecessarily take flight, expending energy 

resources when food resources are limited. Nesting of some species of owls and raptors begins in late winter. 

The effects on the breeding success of these nesting birds caused by hunters passing in the vicinity of the nest 

is unknown. Because this use is not concentrated in space or time (it occurs all over the refuge throughout the 

hunting season), the disturbance effects on wildlife that are using the refuge during fall and winter are not 

expected to be significant.

Migratory birds, especially landbirds, are in the peak of migration during the spring turkey open season. 

Hunters using upland habitats may temporarily disrupt the migrating birds’ feeding and resting. Between 2002 

and 2005, an average of 20 hunters reported hunting during the spring turkey season. Because turkey is an 

upland species, hunters are less likely to enter wetland habitats. Their disturbance to other wildlife species and 

vegetation is concentrated on upland habitats. Due to the low number of spring hunters using the refuge and 

the dispersed nature of the activity, disturbance to wildlife during the spring hunting season is not expected to 

be significant.

Waterfowl seasons on the refuge follow state regulations, including the early September resident goose season. 

The refuge has small numbers of breeding waterfowl including American black duck, mallard, wood duck, 

and Canada goose. Studies conducted from 1980 through 1993 found Canada geese, mallards, wood ducks, 

and black ducks to be the most abundant waterfowl in Canaan Valley (Michael 2002). Of the species present 

on the refuge, black ducks are the only species of management concern listed by the Service. Black ducks are 

one of three species of waterfowl identified with population management objectives that are also showing long 

term population declines between 1970 and 2003 (North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004). Black 

ducks are also listed by the WVDNR as a species of special concern (S2B: very rare or imperiled) due to the 

restricted habitat available for this species in the state. 

Waterfowl are managed by “flyways,” which follow the major migratory routes. Their population trends are 

monitored by the Service through the collection of data including band recoveries, hunter questionnaires, 

wing returns, breeding population and habitat surveys and mid-winter waterfowl surveys (Caithhamer and 

Dobovsky, 1995). The migratory waterfowl in Canaan Valley are a very small part of a large population of birds 

that are managed by the Service on a flyway basis under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 USC 703-712. The 

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
B-34 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Service designs the bag limits and season lengths to maintain healthy populations of these species. Therefore, 

the effect of waterfowl hunting in Canaan Valley would be negligible on refuge, state, regional, local, or flyway 

populations. 

Rails, Gallinule, and Coot. Hunting for rails, gallinules and coots on Canaan Valley refuge follows state 

regulations. These species are also migratory game birds managed by the Service on a flyway basis, with 

state regulations established within the framework of the Service’s directives. Rails are occasionally heard on 

the refuge. Breeding records exist only for Virginia rail which has been documented in the upper Glade Run 

marshes and in isolated cattail stands throughout the refuge. During migration, sora rails are seen in some 

wetland areas around beaver ponds. King rails may also migrate through the valley; however, no recent records 

exist for this species on the refuge. The harvest of these species is likely coincidental with waterfowl hunting 

and the numbers harvested (if any) on the refuge would not be significant to the overall flyway populations of 

these species.

Mourning Doves. Hunting for mourning doves follows state regulations. Like other migratory game birds, 

mourning doves are managed by the Service on a flyway-wide basis. The occurrence of mourning doves on 

the refuge is dependent upon weather conditions, habitat availability, and factors affecting their migratory 

behavior. They are uncommon in the state and in Canaan Valley and the lack of a “huntable population” makes 

the quality of such a hunt questionable. Hunting doves in Canaan Valley would have no impact on the population 

as a whole. 

American Woodcock. The Service proposes to hunt woodcock on the Canaan Valley refuge in accordance state 

regulations. The American woodcock is a trust species managed by the Service, and has been categorized 

as a “species in decline.” The loss and degradation of early successional habitat is considered to be the most 

important factor for these population declines (USFWS 1990). The American Woodcock Management Plan, 

developed by the Service, focuses on habitat management, but acknowledges that managed recreational 

harvest of woodcock is desirable and consistent with conservation, and that recreational hunting will continue 

to be managed under existing regulatory processes in the United States. According to refuge hunter 

information, the number of woodcock taken on the refuge between 2002 and 2005 averaged 318 birds, with a 

high of 426 reported taken in the 2004 season. The average refuge harvest for 2002-2005 seasons represents 

approximately 55% of the state total woodcock harvested in those years.

McAuley et al (2005) note that, hunting mortality was not a significant impact relative to other sources and 

that habitat loss was still considered to be critical in the decline of woodcock populations. Pennsylvania 

implemented very restrictive season lengths in 1984 (21 days) and further restricted the seasons in 1992 (14 

days) in an attempt to protect the “Pennsylvania breeding population” of woodcock. The study indicated 

that the restrictive season lengths had little to no effect on woodcock in Pennsylvania or that other factors 

contribute to the state population decline. This finding supports the theory that habitat deterioration is the 

major problem affecting woodcock in the eastern United States. Therefore hunting woodcock on the refuge is 

not expected to have an impact on the local, regional, or the flyway population.

Wilson’s snipe. The refuge follows state regulations to hunt snipe. Declining populations in the eastern United 

States may lead to more restrictive bags and seasons in the future. Currently snipe population surveys show 

a stable trend from 1966 to 2005 (Sauer et al, 2005). These decisions on season length and bag limits are made 

on a flyway basis, and the State’s regulations would reflect any adjustments made by the Service on a national 

scope.

Weather and habitat conditions, rather than hunting, are likely the predominant factors influencing snipe 

occurrence and population size at Canaan Valley. According to refuge hunt information, an average of one 

snipe per year has been harvested during the years 2002 to 2005. Snipe harvested in West Virginia are likely 

incidental take by sportsmen engaged in hunting other species; therefore, hunting is expected to have little 

impact on the local, state, or flyway snipe population.

Endangered, Threatened, and other Non-game species. Anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

to endangered species, threatened species, and non-game species of the refuge are described below. The refuge 

requested Section 7 informal consultation with the Service’s West Virginia Field Office under the Endangered 

Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) on all the actions in alternative B of this draft CCP/EA, including hunting, that 

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-35

could potentially impact listed species. This process resulted in a finding that our proposed actions are not 

likely to adversely affect the listed species or their associated habitats on the refuge. The full Intra-Service 

Section 7 Biological Evaluation form can be found in appendix I of this draft CCP/EA. Other, non-game species 

that require a more open understory, such as has resulted from deer over browsing, could be adversely affected 

if a reduction in the deer herd produces changes in the understory vegetation. However, as the vegetation 

returns to its more natural state, the associated fauna should also reflect the more natural diversity. The 

overall species diversity of the refuge is not expected to be diminished by this hunting alternative.

Disturbance to non-hunted migratory birds could have regional, local, and flyway effects. Regional and flyway 

effects would not be applicable to species that do not migrate such as most woodpeckers, and some songbirds 

such as cardinals, titmice, wrens, chickadees, etc. Disturbance by hunting to non-hunted migratory birds 

should not have cumulative negative impacts for the following reasons. Hunting seasons do not coincide with 

the nesting season. Long-term future impacts that could occur if reproduction was reduced by hunting are not 

relevant for this reason. Disturbance to the daily wintering activities, such as feeding and resting, of birds may 

occur. Disturbance to birds by hunters is probably commensurate with that caused by non-consumptive users. 

Disturbance by hunting to non-hunted wildlife would be the most likely negative cumulative impact. However, 

disturbance would be unlikely for the following reasons. Small mammals, including bats, are generally inactive 

during winter when hunting season occurs. Both of these qualities make hunter interactions with small 

mammals extremely rare. Hibernation or torpor by cold-blood reptiles and amphibians also limits their activity 

during the hunting season when temperatures are low. Hunters will rarely encounter reptiles and amphibians 

during most of the hunting season. Encounters with reptiles and amphibians in the early fall are few and should 

not have cumulative negative effects on reptile and amphibian populations. Invertebrates are also not active 

during cold weather and will have few interactions with hunters during the hunting season.

User Conflict

Increasing the number of rifle hunting areas may result in additional user conflicts between hunters and nonhunters. Some perspectives include opposition to increasing access for hunters on the basis of unfairness of 

unequal access. Other enhancements that favor hunters may cause adverse impacts. For example, assisting 

hunters with game retrieval would provide special access for a specific group (hunters) and may cause damage 

to refuge resources. In more general terms, providing shuttles, improving roads, and investing in other 

improvements for hunting access would use budget dollars that could support other refuge activities and users. 

It is anticipated that these issues could be resolved with outreach and education by, for example, explaining that 

managing the white-tailed deer population helps to prevent over-browsing of refuge habitats. Furthermore, 

user conflicts are minimized because, according to state regulations, it is illegal to shoot a firearm within 400 

feet of a school or church, or within 500 feet of a dwelling, or on or near a park or other place where people are 

gathered for pleasure. Also, hunting occurs during the winter, when fewer people visit the refuge. 

The overall impacts of this use were fully reviewed and discussed in the “Amended Environmental Assessment, 

Hunt Program Proposal, Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge” (USFWS 2007b). Please refer to this 

document for a full discussion of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts for this use.

Hunter disturbance to non-hunted resident wildlife may be a negative cumulative impact; however, such an 

impact is unlikely because of the timing of the hunt. The hunts will occur during a time of the year when small 

mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates are inactive and thus the likelihood of hunter interaction 

is rare. Isolated encounters with small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates should not have 

cumulative negative effects on populations.

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
B-36 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

This compatibility determination will be released concurrent with the draft CCP/EA for a 45-day public review 

and comment period. 

DETERMINATION

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY

1. The use of private ATVs or other off-road vehicles on refuge lands is prohibited.

2. The use of nails, wire, screws, or bolts, to attach a stand to a tree is prohibited, as is the use of a tree with 

existing nails, wire, screws, or bolts.

3. Hunting over bait is prohibited.

4. The use or possession of alcoholic beverages while hunting is prohibited.

Hunting on the refuge would also be contingent on the following refuge-specific stipulations:

1. While participating in hunts on the refuge, hunters must have in their possession a current, signed Canaan 

Valley National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Permit and the appropriate state hunting license(s) and federal 

waterfowl stamps. 

2. Only the following game species may be taken on the refuge: white-tailed deer, black bear, wild turkey, 

waterfowl, mourning dove, rails, gallinule, coot, American woodcock, snipe, squirrel, ruffed grouse, rabbit, 

hare, red and gray foxes, raccoon, bobcat, woodchuck, coyote, opossum and striped skunk.

3. State regulations stipulate that it is illegal to shoot a fi rearm within 400 feet of a school or church, or within 

500 feet of a dwelling, or on or near a park or other place where people are gathered for pleasure.

4. The refuge will be closed to hunting between March 1st and August 31st of each year, except for the spring 

turkey season. 

5. All game that is killed or crippled shall be retrieved, if possible, and retained in the custody of the hunter in 

the fi eld.

6. In the no-rifl e zone of the refuge, the following stipulations are in place:

■ The take of big game will be restricted to archery, muzzleloader, and shotgun. The take of upland/small 

game will be restricted to shotgun only.

■ Handguns will not be used to take game.

■ Muzzleloaders will be restricted to the type defined by state regulations; telescopic sights will be 

permitted during buck, antlerless, and muzzleloader seasons.

■ Shotguns firing slugs will be permitted for deer hunting.

7. Hunting birds with pointing and/or retrieving dogs will be permitted, but no more than two dogs per hunter 

will be allowed in the fi eld. Extra dogs remaining in a hunter’s vehicle will not count as dogs in the fi eld.

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-37

8. The take of wild turkeys with rifl es will be prohibited throughout the refuge, and shot larger than #4 will be 

prohibited.

9. A minimum of 400 square inches of blaze orange must be worn by all hunters, except for waterfowl, turkey, 

and archery hunters. For waterfowl, turkey, and archery hunters, 400 square inches of blaze orange must be 

worn while traveling between stands and/or blinds. 

10. Portable tree stands are the only type permitted on the refuge.

11. Trimming or cutting branches is prohibited. Hunting from blinds made from cut conifer tree branches 

(balsam fi r, red spruce, hemlock) is prohibited.

12. All tree stands must have the name and address of the owner clearly printed on the stand. All stands must be 

removed by the last day of deer season.

13. The refuge bear gun season will be the same as the state seasons.

14. Bear gun hunters will be limited to six dogs each. Releasing and picking up dogs on Cortland Road and Old 

Timberline Road will be prohibited.

15. All dogs are required to wear a collar displaying the owner’s name, address, and telephone number.

16. Hunters who lose dogs will be required to search for them for three days, and will not be allowed to hunt 

during the search period.

17. Dog training is prohibited except during legal hunting seasons.

18. Hunting rabbits and raccoons with pursuit dogs will be permitted, but no more than four dogs per hunter will 

be allowed in the fi eld. Extra dogs remaining in a hunter’s vehicle will not count as dogs in the fi eld.

19. Raccoon dog training and/or “night hunts” will be prohibited except during raccoon hunting season.

20. Night hunting on the refuge will be by special use permit only. Hunters will have to apply for the permit in 

person or by mail or telephone. 

21. Hunting will be prohibited on refuge lands west of Highway 32 and adjacent to Canaan Valley 

Resort State Park.

22. No camping is allowed on refuge lands.

23. All accidents and injuries must be reported to the refuge offi ce as soon as possible. 

24. Trail maintenance will be emphasized to harden wet areas along Middle Valley Trail and immediately repair 

areas damaged by the use of ATV’s during the fi rst week of deer gun season.

25. Stream banks and stream bottom of Glade Run will be hardened using native stone to reduce the potential 

impact of erosion by ATV use to remove deer during the fi rst week of deer gun season.

26. Persons possessing, transporting, or carrying fi rearms on national wildlife refuges must comply with all 

provisions of state and local law. Persons may only use (discharge) fi rearms in accordance with refuge 

regulations (50 CFR 27.42 and specifi c refuge regulations in 50 CFR Part 32).

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
B-38 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

JUSTIFICATION

Hunting, when compatible, is defined as one of the priority public uses of the Refuge System by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Permitted regulated hunting on the Canaan Valley refuge 

would not have any significant impacts on the refuge environment, populations of hunted species, adjacent 

lands, or nearby residents. The refuge environment includes soils, vegetation, air quality, water quality, 

and solitude. Some disturbance to the soils and vegetation is expected in areas open to hunting, but impacts 

would be minimal due to the dispersed nature of the activity and the fact that soils are typically frozen and 

vegetation is mostly dormant during state hunting seasons. Hunting would benefit vegetation by keeping 

resident herbivore wildlife populations in balance with the carrying capacity of the habitat. Impacts on physical 

resources resulting from trampling of vegetation would be minimal and temporary as vegetation would recover. 

Wildlife and vegetation surveys, data, and personal communications with other scientists, state biologists, and 

universities, have led the staff of Canaan Valley refuge to conclude that the high density of deer causes much 

more damage to vegetation than allowing hunting. For these reasons, permitting this use would not impair the 

refuge’s ability to conserve wetland vegetation, plant resources and habitats as directed by the Emergency 

Wetland Resources Act (1986) and the mission of the refuge system.

Disturbance to other wildlife will occur, however the impact will be lessened because of the time of year 

hunting is permitted. Off-trail access is necessary to permit this priority public use. Because the use is 

necessarily spatially dispersed and it occurs over the duration of the various state hunting seasons, the 

disturbance impacts will be less intense. Restricting night time raccoon hunting through the issuance of a 

special use permit provides the refuge with greater control to prevent disturbance during evening hours. These 

disturbance impacts will not materially affect the refuge’s ability to fulfill its overall obligations to protect, 

conserve and manage fish, wildlife or plant species as directed by the mission of the Refuge System.

Hunting would not have any affect on threatened or endangered species utilizing the refuge. The Cheat 

Mountain salamander is restricted to one tract on the refuge in higher elevations. This species is active 

when surface temperatures are above 550F which typically does not occur during the state hunt seasons. 

Additionally, the majority of hunting activity occurs outside of the spruce forest habitat occupied by this 

salamander. The endangered Indiana bat is known to occur only during summer and early fall on the refuge, 

which is mostly outside the refuge hunt seasons. The most sensitive locations for this species are hibernacula 

and maternity colonies. To date these have not been documented on refuge lands. 

Allowing hunting would provide recreational opportunities at Canaan Valley refuge to hunters from all over the 

country. Data collected between 2002 and 2005 indicate that an average of 891 people hunt on the refuge every 

year. These hunters come from approximately 18 different states. This activity and program produces a positive 

impact on refuge management, visitor attitudes, and the local economy. The local purchases of gas, food, 

lodging, hunting licenses, equipment, and supplies, from mostly out-of-state hunters contributes significantly to 

the local economy. In 2004, total hunting visitor expenditures in a tri-county area (Tucker, Marion, Monongalia) 

was 54,800 (USFWS 2005). Hunters spread the word to their friends, encouraging them to come to the area to 

take advantage of the high quality recreation and, thus, positively affect the economy of the area. Deer hunting 

would also contribute to the reduction of vehicle damage and human injury from collision between deer and 

vehicles. In 2004, 14,739 deer were reported killed by collision with vehicles in West Virginia (WVDNR 2009).

Increased hunting opportunities would increase the number of licenses and duck stamps sold, as well as the 

amount of locally purchased hunting supplies. An increase in hunting opportunities on the refuge would not 

affect the refuge’s non-consumptive users; therefore, there would be no negative impacts on the contributions 

already made to the local economy by non-consumptive users. 

Based on wildlife surveys and population estimates conducted by the state as well as the Service (in regards to 

migratory birds), wildlife which are harvested on the refuge have surplus populations and are able to sustain 

regulated harvest without impacting local or regional populations. Both the state and Service review harvest 

information annually to assess impacts on population levels and adjust, if necessary take limits and season 

lengths. These regulations ensure the continued well-being of overall populations of game animals. Hunting 

does result in the taking of many individuals within the overall population, but restrictions are designed to 

safeguard an adequate breeding population from year to year. Hunting under state and federal guidelines, as 

well as refuge specific regulations, will not impact the populations of resident wildlife or migratory birds that 

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-39

the refuge protects and will not have adverse effects on the overall conservation of wildlife or their habitats on 

the refuge. Based upon state and federal regulations, the hunting program will operate under sound wildlife 

management principles and is in the public interest as directed under 50 CFR 32.1.

Specific refuge regulations address equity and quality of opportunity for hunters, and help safeguard refuge 

habitat. Disturbance to other wildlife does occur, but this disturbance is generally short-term and adequate 

habitat occurs in adjacent areas. Apart from the refuge’s deliberate efforts to reduce the deer population 

to a balanced level, hunting of other species as described will not significantly affect the local or regional 

population of any of these species. For these reasons, public hunting will not prevent the refuge from 

fulfilling the purposes of the Fish and Wildlife Act (1956) or the mission of the Refuge System for conserving, 

managing, restoring, and protecting wildlife resources. In addition, deer hunting would help control the 

refuge’s deer population and reduce over browsing. This directly supports the refuge purpose (Emergency 

Wetland Resources Act 1986) by conserving refuge wetland communities, and it supports the founding purpose 

to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley as stated in the 1979 EIS. If operated under federal 

regulations for migratory birds, and in concert with state regulations, the hunt program would not affect the 

refuges’ responsibility to ensure the protection and management of migratory birds as directed for the tracts 

purchased under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929). 

In summary, the hunt program on the refuge would not have any significant impacts to hunted species, 

to the local or regional populations of these species, to the refuge environment, to adjacent lands, or to 

nearby residents. By permitting public hunting the refuge is fulfilling the mission of the Refuge System by 

administering refuge resources for the benefit of present and future generations. For these reasons, we have 

determined that hunting will not materially interfere with or detract from fulfilling refuge purposes and 

mission of the Refuge System.

Refuge Manager 

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

 (Signature) (Date)

MANDATORY 15 YEAR RE-EVALUATION DATE

 

 

 (Date)

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
B-40 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

LITERATURE CITED

Allombert, S., S. Stockton, and J-L. Martin. 2005. A natural experiment on the impact of overabundant deer 

 on forest invertebrates. Conservation Biology 19:1917–1929.

Anderson, R. C. 1994. Height of white-flowered trillium (Trillium grandiflorum) as an index of deer browsing 

 intensity. Ecological Applications 4:104-109.

Augustine, D. J., and L. E. Frelich. 1998. Effects of white-tailed deer on populations of an understory forb in 

 fragmented deciduous forests. Conservation Biology 12:995-1004.

Augustine, D. J., and P. A. Jordan. ,1998. Predictors of White-tailed deer grazing intensity in fragmented 

 deciduous forests. Journal of Wildlife Management. 62(3):1076-1085.

Bartgis, R., and A. Berdine. 1991. A preliminary assessment of biological resources in the Canaan Valley of 

 West Virginia. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 

Bell, S. 2002. National Resource Conservation Service. Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 4pp.

Behrend, D. F., G. F. Mattfield, W. C. Tierson and J. E. Wiley. 1970. Deer density control for comprehensive 

 forest management. J. Forestry. 68:695-700.

Bonwell, W. 1996. Coping with coyotes. Wonderful West Virginia 60(8):5-7.

Brown, C.L. Unpublished data. West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. Personal communication.

Brown, S.E., and G.R. Parker. 1997. Impact of white-tailed deer on forest communities within Brown County 

 State Park, Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Sciences. Vol. 106, no. 1-2, pp. 39-51. 

Caithhamer, D.F. and J.A. Dobovsky. 1995. Waterfowl population status, 1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

 Laurel, MD. 45pp.

Cypher, B. L., and E. A. Cypher. 1988. Ecology and management of white-tailed deer in northern coastal 

 habitats: a synthesis of the literature pertinent to National Wildlife Refuges from Maine to Virginia. 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88-15. 52 pp.

Davis, D. E., J. J. Christian, and F. Bronson. 1964. Effect of exploitation on birth, mortality and movement 

 rates in a woodchuck population. J. Wildl. Manage. 28:1-9.

deCalesta, D. S. 1994. Deer and diversity in Allegheny hardwood forests: managing an unlikely challenge. 

 Landscape and Urban Planning 28: 47-53.

Demarais, S., K. V. Miller, and H. A. Jacobson. 2000. White-tailed deer. Pp. 601–628 in S. Demarais and P. 

 R. Krausman, eds. Ecology and management of large mammals in North America. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 

 Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Fischer, J.R, L.P. Hanson, J.R. Turk, M.A. Miller, W.H. Fales and H.S. Gosser. 1995. An epizootic of 

 hemorrhagic disease in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Missouri: Necropsy findings and 

 population impact. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 31(1), 1995, pp. 30-36.

Foster, Gary. 2006. .M. 2007. Personal communication of Gary Foster, District Wildlife Biologist, West 

 Virginia Division of Natural Resources with K. Sturm, Refuge Biologist, Canaan Valley National 

 Wildlife Refuge February 22, 2007.

Higgins, K.L. Hunting dynamics, condition estimates and movements of black bears hunted with hounds in 

 Virginia. Master’s Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 116pp.

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-41

Johnson, A. S., P. E. Hale, W. M. Ford, J. M. Wentworth, J. R. French, O. F. Anderson, and G. B. Pullen. 1995. 

 White-tailed deer foraging in relation to successional stage, overstory type, and management of 

 southern Appalachian forests. American Midland Naturalist 133:18-35.

McAuley. D.G. et. al. 2005. Effects of hunting on survival of American woodcock in the northeast. Journal of 

 Wildlife Management 69(4): 1565-1577.

McCullough, D. R. 1982. Evaluation of night spotlighting as a deer study technique. Journal of Wildlife 

 Management. 46:963-973.

McCullough, D. R. 1997. Irruptive behavior in ungulates. Pages 69-98 in W. J. McShea, H. B. Underwood, 

 and J. H. Rappole eds. The science of overabundance: deer ecology and population management. 

 Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Michael, E. D. 1974. Hunter use of the Canaan Valley. Report to Allegheny Power Service Corporation. 19 pp.

Michael, E.D. and S.L. Brown. 2002. Waterfowl Surveys in Canaan Valley: 1980-1993. Report for Canaan 

 Valley Celebration, October 2002. 7pp.

Nixon, C. M., M. W. McClain, and R. W. Donohoe. 1975. Effects of hunting and mast crops on a squirrel 

 population. J. Wildl. Manage. 39:1-25.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee. 2004. North American Waterfowl 

 Management Plan 2004. Strategic Guidance: Strengthening the Biological Foundation. Canadian 

 Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 

 22pp.

Norman, G.W., Stauffer, D.F., Sole, J., Allen, T.J., Igo, W.K., Bittner, S., Edwards, J., Giuliano, W.M., Tefft, 

 B., Harper, C., Buehler, D., Figert, D., Seamster, M., and Swanson, D. (Editors). Ruffed grouse ecology 

 and management in the Appalachian region: Final project report of the Appalachian Cooperative 

 Grouse Research Project. 2004. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, VA, 

 USA.

Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee. 1996a. Trapping and Furbearer Management: 

 Perspectives from the Northeast. 33pp.

Porter, W. F. 1991. White-tailed deer in eastern ecosystems: Implications for management and research. 

 National Park Service Technical Bulletin. NRSYNY.NRR-91/05. 57pp.

Porter, W.F., N.E. Mathews, H. B. Underwood, R.W. Sage, Jr., and D.F. Behrend. 1991. Social organization in 

 Deer: Implications for localized management. Environmental Management. 15(6):809-814. 

Rizzo, A. 2002. Personal Communications with Al Rizzo, Soil Scientist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 

 17-19, 2002.

Rogers, R.E. 2004. Monitoring mountain state raccoons. West Virginia Wildlife. West Virginia Division of 

 Natural Resources, Charleston, WV.

Russell, F. L., and N. L. Fowler. 1999. Rarity of oak saplings in savannas and woodlands of the eastern 

 Edwards Plateau. Southwestern Naturalist 44:31-41.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 

 1966 - 2005. Version 6.2.2006. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD

Swihart, R. K., H. P. Weeks, Jr., A. L. Easter-Pilcher, and A. J. DeNicola. 1998. 

 Nutritional condition and fertility of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) from areas with 

 contrasting histories of hunting. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76: 1932-1941.

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
B-42 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Tierson, W. C., E. F. Patric and D. F. Behrend. 1966. Influence of white-tailed deer on the logged northern 

 hardwood forest. J. Forestry. 64:804-805.

Tilghman, N. G. 1989. Impacts of white-tailed deer on forest regeneration in northwestern Pennsylvania. J. 

 Wildl. Manage. 53:524-532

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Acquisition 

 of lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of the Interior - 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. American woodcock management plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

 U.S. Department of Interior. 11pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final Environmental Assessment - Acquisition of lands for the Canaan 

 Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 50 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Refuge Manual: National Wildlife Refuge System. U.S. Fish 

 and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Banking on America: The Economic Benefits to Local 

 Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, Division Of Economics, Washington D.C. 

 297-300pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007a. Hunting Management Plan. Canaan Valley National Wildlife 

 Refuge. November 1997 updated 2007. Tucker County, West Virginia. 19 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007b. Amended Environmental Assessment, Hunt Program 

 Proposal, Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. April 2007. Tucker County, West Virginia. 113 pp.

Van Deelen, T. R., K. S. Pregitzer, and J. B. Haufler. 1996. A comparison of presettlement and present-day 

 forests in two northern Michigan deeryards. American Midland Naturalist 135: 187-194. 

West Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (WV DNR). 2009. Nonseasonal Mortality: White-tailed Deer. 

 Accessed on 9/4/2009 at http://www.wvdnr.gov/Hunting/BGB2004DeerDeerNSeasMortal.shtm

Weigl, P. D., M. A. Steele, L. J. Sherman, and J. C. Ha. 1989. The ecology of the fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) 

 in North Carolina: implication for survival in the southeast. Bull. of Tall Timbers Research Station, 

 Tallahassee, Fl. No. 24:93pp.

Yarrow, G. K., and D. T. Yarrow. 1999. Managing Wildlife. Sweet Water Press. Birmingham, AL. 588pp.

Zeedyk, B. 2002. Summary Report of Road Related Wetlands Impacts of the Canaan Valley refuge. 5 pp.

Attachment: Map B-1 Public Hunting

Compatibility Determination – Public Hunting
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-43

Map B-1 Public Hunting
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-45

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE

Public Fishing

REFUGE NAME

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED

August 11, 1994

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY

The establishment of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was first approved in an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) released on May 30, 1979. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

decided to await the outcome of litigation surrounding a proposed storage hydroelectric facility before pursuing 

any further action. The approval of the refuge was affirmed by the Service in a 1994 Final Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact on July 11, 1994, which confirmed the adequacy of the 

previously-approved 1979 EIS. The refuge was officially established when the first tract of land was acquired 

on August 11, 1994. The Service has acquired lands for the Canaan Valley refuge under the following 

authorities:

1. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)]

2. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901b]

3. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 [16 U.S.C. 715d]

REFUGE PURPOSE(S) 

The refuge was established to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and the continued availability 

of its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources to the citizens of West Virginia and the United States (USFWS 

1979, 1994). Additional refuge purposes derived from the legislative authorities are as follows:

(1) “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f (a)(4)); 

(2) “... for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide 

and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions.” 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986; 16 U.S.C. 3901(b)); and,

(3) “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929; 16 U.S.C. 715d).

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION

To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for 

the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 

16 U.S.C § 668dd (a)(2).

Compatibility Determination – Public Fishing
B-46 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use?

The use is public fishing on publicly accessible beaver ponds and the Blackwater River and its tributaries 

on the refuge. Priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) are defined by 

statute and regulation as: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation (16 U.S.C. §668ee(2), 50 CFR §25.12). Fishing is one of the six priority public uses of the refuge 

system. Using non-motorized watercraft to facilitate fishing is mentioned briefly in this document, but effects 

are analyzed in the compatibility determination entitled “Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental 

Education, and Interpretation.”

(b) Where would the use be conducted?

The use would be conducted in all open areas within the refuge. The West Virginia Division of Natural 

Resources (WVDNR) stocked black bass in beaver ponds on the property in 1964. No additional stocking by 

the State has occurred since then on the Main Tract. About 20 large ponds currently exist but their capacity to 

support fish habitat is unknown. No scientific inventory has been conducted to determine what existing beaver 

ponds still contain sport fish. Reports from local anglers indicate that rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris) are 

caught in beaver ponds receiving water from Glade Run on the east side of the wetland and the Blackwater 

River on the west side. Sunfish species such as bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus) 

are also reported from these ponds. Beaver ponds can be dynamic and sustaining fish habitat is dependent 

upon beaver activity, climate, and wetland conditions. Beavers continually create new impoundments and old 

ponds disappear through abandonment or successional changes that decrease standing water. 

Fishing also occurs along the banks of the Blackwater River and its tributaries within the refuge. Vehicle 

access to Main Tract waters is primarily along A Frame road and Delta 13 road. Anglers typically walk 

designated pedestrian roads and trails to fishing access points. These points are: the Blackwater River which 

can be accessed from Delta 13 road, Timberline road, and Old Timberline road. Beaver pond complexes can be 

accessed from Delta 13 road and the A-Frame road. Glade Run can be accessed by the north and south crossing 

of the Middle Ridge trail. See map B-2 for fishing access locations.

(c) When would the use be conducted?

Beaver ponds and the Blackwater River are open year round subject to West Virginia state fishing regulations. 

Daily hours of use are between one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset when the refuge is open to 

the public. Fishing at the south end fluctuates and is heavier during spring trout stocking of the Blackwater 

River. Additional information regarding timing of fishing is not known although concentrated use is expected in 

spring at peak water and stocking levels. 

(d) How would the use be conducted?

Fishing methods and harvest limits on the refuge conform to West Virginia state law. The refuge will prohibit 

the possession or use and collection of live or dead bait fish (including crayfish and amphibians) on the refuge. 

Anglers enter the refuge from parking lots, follow designated public use trails and walk to fishing waters. 

Fishing areas in winter would be accessed by cross-country skiing or snowshoeing along designated roads and 

trails. Since no snow removal is conducted on refuge roads or parking areas, anglers may have to park farther 

away from refuge parking areas and public access sites during winter months. Anglers using non-motorized 

watercraft on the Blackwater River would enter the refuge from outside refuge boundaries or from designated 

refuge access points. Overland transport of watercraft is permitted on designated public use roads and trails to 

facilitate fishing access. Safety and information signs will be installed and maintained as necessary. 

The use of gasoline motors will be prohibited on the refuge. Gasoline motors cause increased disturbance to 

wildlife and can pollute water through gas and oil discharge. The riparian corridor of the Blackwater River is 

an important resting and feeding area for refuge waterfowl. Eliminating the noise disturbance from gasoline 

motors will reduce the level of disturbance to waterfowl and other waterbirds utilizing river habitats.

A refuge officer will record the number of anglers fishing, areas used for fishing, access routes used, timing of 

use, and any related safety concerns. Anglers may be checked to determine compliance with state and refuge 

regulations. Use will be monitored annually to determine if it remains compatible.

 

Compatibility Determination – Public Fishing
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-47

(e) Why is this use being proposed?

Fishing existed on the refuge lands prior to acquisition and is considered to be a priority public use of the 

Refuge System. Allowing this use would continue to provide an opportunity for the public to engage in a 

priority public use.

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

The resources necessary to provide and administer this use are available within current and anticipated 

refuge budgets. Staff time associated with administration of this use is spent maintaining associated road 

infrastructure, collecting visitor use data, analyzing use patterns, monitoring potential impacts of the use on 

refuge resources, and providing information to the public about the use.

The program is administered by the deputy refuge manager, resource impacts are monitored by the wildlife 

biologist, visitor use is monitored by a park ranger and outdoor recreation planner, and maintenance and repair 

will be performed by a heavy equipment operator. Additionally, resource protection is provided by a park 

ranger (refuge officer) and deputy refuge manager.

Refuge vehicles are needed to effectively administer the use. The heavy equipment operator performs the 

maintenance and repair of refuge roads, parking lots, and associated structures. The refuge has heavy 

equipment including a motor grader, dump truck, bulldozer, backhoe, 4x4 farm tractor, bobcat, and front-end 

loader. 

Annual costs associated with the administration of public fishing on the refuge are estimated below:

Road maintenance and repair, sign installation and kiosk construction and repair, maintaining parking 

areas, and picking up and removing litter associated with bank fishing activities

■ WG-10 Equipment Operator for 10 work days = $2,725.60

Planning and supervising staff to monitor the use and its effects on environment and other visitors

■ GS-13 Refuge Manager for 1 work day =$450.24

■ GS-11/12 Deputy Refuge Manager for 3 work days = $836.16

Resource protection, monitoring fishing activities and interactions with other users, visitor services, 

sign maintenance, litter removal

■ GS-9 Refuge Officer for 5 work days = $1,228.80

Monitoring habitat impacts from fishing activities

■ GS-12 Wildlife Biologist for 2 work days (training & interagency coordination) = $735.04

■ GS-11 Wildlife Biologist for 2 work days (sampling, electro shocking etc.) = $594.56

■ GS-7 Biological Science Technician for 3 work days (sampling, electro shocking etc.) = $602.64

Compatibility Determination – Public Fishing
B-48 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Providing information to the public about public fishing and compiling use data 

■ GS-11 Outdoor Recreation Planner for 5 work days = $1,765.20

Motor vehicle fuel / law enforcement patrols = $100.00

Heavy equipment fuel = $250.00

Kiosk repair, signs, printing maps and information = $1,000.00

Grand Total Estimated Costs = $10,288.24

FY 2009 Budget Allocations:

 Employee Salaries and benefits = $624,039.53

 Fixed costs (utilities, fuel, administrative) = $211,415.23

 Base maintenance = $50,000

 Discretionary Funds (maps, printing, etc.) = $62,243.32

 Total Available Funds for FY 2009 = $947,698.08

Based on a review of the budget allocated for recreational use management, funding is adequate to 

ensure compatibility and to administer and manage the recreational use listed and is expected to 

remain adequate, subject to the continuing availability of appropriated funds

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE

To evaluate potential impacts, existing information on Canaan Valley wetlands, streams, dominant plant 

communities and soils were overlaid onto the base map. All soils associated with trails were evaluated for their 

compaction and erosion potential from information received from a Natural Resource Conservation Service soil 

scientist and the Tucker County soil survey. Information from WVDNR species of special concern database was 

added to the map. Trails that fragmented habitat and crossed wetland soils were identified.

A comprehensive literature review was conducted of published scientific journal articles detailing impacts to 

plants, soils, and wildlife through public use activities. Additional information was gathered from biologists, 

land managers and scientists who had experience with wildlife disturbance and trail management issues. 

A contract hydrologist and soil scientist were hired to conduct field investigations of routes proposed for public 

use. Recommendations were given on limiting factors of these trails and restoration required to make existing 

trails suitable for continued public use. 

Potential impacts of fishing access include: soil compaction and erosion, downstream sedimentation, trampling 

and mortality of fragile wetland plant communities, habitat loss/deterioration, and wildlife disturbance. These 

threats are described below based on literature reviews and staff field examinations:

Effects on Vegetation: Vegetation surveys have been conducted in Canaan Valley to document dominant plant 

communities and as well as rare plant species and plant communities (Fortney 1975, Bartgis and Berdine 1991, 

Fortney 1997). Foot travel to and use of fishing locations can have indirect impacts to plants by compacting 

soils and diminishing soil porosity, aeration and nutrient availability that affect plant growth and survival (Kuss 

1986). Hammitt and Cole (1998) note that compaction limits the ability of plants to revegetate affected areas. 

Regularly occurring foot travel can crush plants. Rare plants with limited site occurrence are particularly 

susceptible. Many plant species considered rare in the state are found associated with riparian wetlands in the 

Canaan Valley (Bartgis and Berdine 1991). Fishing along riparian corridors may cause trampling impacts to 

rare plants disproportionate to other public use activities.

Walking to fishing areas during the growing season could cause increased damage to plants in the wetland 

communities. Plants in the process of growth and producing flowers, and growing in wet or moist soils, are 

Compatibility Determination – Public Fishing
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-49

the most sensitive to disturbance from trampling effects (Kuss 1986). Moist and wet soil conditions are common 

in Canaan Valley, particularly during spring and early summer, and are directly associated with areas around 

beaver ponds and along riparian corridors where fishing occurs. 

It is anticipated that allowing fishing access will cause minor vegetation loss. Foot travel may slightly increase 

root exposure and trampling, and some rare plant species could be impacted by anglers walking around beaver 

ponds or along riparian corridors. However, observations from refuge staff and anecdotal reports suggest 

that less than 10 persons per month fish the subject ponds in the northern portion of the refuge. Therefore, 

continuing pedestrian access for fishing, at the current level of use, is not anticipated to cause any significant 

impacts to plants or plant communities due to the low numbers of anglers interested in walking off trail to 

access remote beaver ponds or river sections. Additionally, the area of impact is generally spread to a variety of 

sites which prevents a concentrated impact at any one location.

Effects on Soils: Soils can be compacted and eroded as a result of continued foot traffic. All soils associated 

with wetland habitats were rated as either high or very high in their potential for compaction (Bell 2002). 

Impacts to soils will likely be greater during the growing season due to the greater soil moisture content at 

that time of year. The Mauch Chunk-derived soil in Canaan Valley is particularly vulnerable to mechanical 

erosion when the vegetation has been removed (Rizzo 2002). If compacted, Mauch Chunk soils can facilitate 

rapid water runoff that accelerates erosion down slope (Rizzo 2002). Field investigations of trails in Canaan 

Valley have documented extensive damage, displaying classic examples of the erosive nature of Mauch Chunkderived soils after years of unregulated use. Although foot travel did not create highly erosive conditions in 

this soil type, lug soles of hiking boots could perpetuate the problem. Fishing along river corridors may cause 

bank erosion allowing sediment to enter the Blackwater River and its tributaries.

It is anticipated that minor impacts to soils will occur as a result of allowing fishing access on the refuge. 

Erosion potential will likely vary during the year based on soil moisture and temperatures. At the current use 

level, impacts to soils (erosion, compaction) are not likely to be significant. We would not expect large increases 

in the level of use due to the fact that the remote areas of the refuge will not be stocked by the state with game 

species and many ponds are difficult to access on foot. 

Effects on Hydrology: Trails can affect the hydrology of an area, primarily through alteration of drainage 

patterns. Bartgis and Berdine (1991) note that roads and trails can divert water from their original drainage 

patterns in Canaan Valley. This can result in some drainages becoming dry while others accelerate erosion 

by being forced to carry more water. Zeedyk (2002) documented many instances in Canaan Valley where 

existing trails were channeling water away from historical wetlands and, in some cases, causing erosion 

and sedimentation of bog and other wetland communities. These historical problems have profoundly if not 

irreversibly altered the extent, depths, characteristics and function of the wetlands on the Main Tract (Zeedyk 

2002). The effects of these trails and roads were a direct result of vehicle use and road construction prior 

to the refuge’s acquisition of the property. Since then measures have been taken to remediate erosion and 

sedimentation issues, particularly on trails that are open to public access. Furthermore, since the refuge has 

now acquired lands within the acquisition boundary, it can now prohibit vehicle use and road construction in 

certain areas so as to minimize these types of impacts. 

Angler foot traffic on existing trails will create only minor hydrologic impacts and is not anticipated to 

significantly exacerbate existing hydrologic problems. Maintenance will be required to create adequate and 

proper drainage so that existing routes do not impact local hydrology. These impacts are not likely to be 

significant in relation to other public uses permitted on refuge trails. Foot traffic off trail, if concentrated, 

could remove vegetation, compact soil and cause water channeling/pooling. Areas will be monitored for these 

effects and if impacts are found, areas will be temporarily closed for restoration. 

Effects on Wildlife: About 20 large ponds currently exist but no inventory has been conducted to determine 

what existing beaver ponds still contain fish. Reports from anglers indicate that rock bass and largemouth bass 

are caught in beaver ponds receiving water from Glade Run on the east side of the refuge and the Blackwater 

River on the west side. Sunfish species such as bluegill and pumpkinseed are also reported from these ponds. 

Twenty of the thirty documented fish species which occur on the refuge are native. The others are non-native 

species introduced on purpose or through accidental releases from anglers using live bait. For example, bass 

Compatibility Determination – Public Fishing
B-50 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

were introduced into the valley by the state in the 1960’s. Rainbow and brown trout are stocked annually in the 

Blackwater River.

Brook trout are the only native salmonid to the Blackwater River. Naturally reproducing brook trout 

populations exist in several small, cold streams that flow into the Blackwater River. Although no refuge-wide 

survey has been accomplished, populations of brook trout are known from Idleman’s Run, Freeland Run, and 

Yokum Run. There are historical documentations in the Little Blackwater River, North Branch, Flag Run, and 

two other small tributaries in the valley. Additionally, some limestone springs have been noted with brook trout 

on the south end of the refuge. 

Redside dace, a rare, medium-sized minnow, has also been found on the refuge. This species is listed as a state 

species of concern (S1S2) and is known from only 9 localities in West Virginia (Stauffer et al. 1995). Historical 

records document this species occurring in Freeland Run, Sand Run, and the North Branch. Records of this 

species in the 1940’s and 1950’s were apparently common in Canaan Valley, occurring in small tributaries as 

well as the main stem of the Blackwater River (Cincotta et al. 2002). However surveys by the WVDNR in 

recent years have found this species only in Freeland Run and only one individual was found. It is possible that 

habitat alteration from development and other land use practices have degraded stream conditions, therefore 

contributing to the decrease in the redside dace population. Angling pressure is not considered to have played 

an important role in reducing the redside dace’s population on the refuge. Redside dace are a minnow, not a 

sport fish, and as such they are not a target species for anglers.

Impacts to the fishery are expected to be insignificant. Most game species present on the refuge are nonnative species to the Blackwater watershed. Native brook trout occur in very limited locations in smaller 

drainages in the valley. Overfishing these areas could have a significant effect on their persistence on the 

refuge. However, most drainages where brook trout are found are not fished aggressively due to the small size 

of the streams and correspondingly small size of the fish. Additionally, habitat degradation from grazing and 

water diversions as well as the stocking of non-native brown trout are considered to be a larger threat to brook 

trout populations than angling pressure.

The largest pressure on fish populations on the refuge is for stocked rainbow and brown trout populations. 

These are non-native species to the Blackwater River watershed and are stocked annually by the state. 

Permitting fishing access for these species is considered to be an acceptable form of wildlife dependent 

recreation on the refuge which does not significantly impact refuge resources. Since the fishery is artificially 

stocked, the rainbow and brown trout populations are supplemented to compensate for angling pressures.

The presence of anglers can impact terrestrial wildlife. Disturbances vary with the species involved and the 

type, level, frequency, duration and the time of year such activities occur. Whittaker and Knight (1998) note 

that wildlife response can include attraction, habituation, and avoidance. These responses can have negative 

impacts to wildlife, such as mammals becoming habituated to humans, making them easier targets for hunters. 

Human- induced avoidance by wildlife can prevent animals from using otherwise suitable habitat (Pomerantz et 

al. 1988).

Foot travel to fishing areas will occur on established trails. Trail use can disturb wildlife outside the immediate 

trail corridor (Trails and Wildlife Task Force 1998, Miller et al. 2001). Miller et al. (1998) found bird abundance 

and nesting activities (including nest success) increased as distance from a recreational trail increased in both 

grassland and forested habitats. Bird communities in this study were apparently affected by the presence of 

recreational trails, where common species (i.e., American robins) were found near trails and rare species (i.e., 

grasshopper sparrows) were found farther from trails. Songbird nest failure was also greater near trails 

(Miller et al. 1998). 

Humans walking off trail have been shown to cause greater disturbance (greater area of influence, flush 

distance, and distance moved) to wildlife than walking within trail corridors (Miller et al. 2001). Predictability 

of disturbance (on trail vs. off trail) has been cited as a major factor in impacts to wildlife. Walking off trail is 

considered less predictable to wildlife and typically more disruptive (Knight and Cole 1991, Trails and Wildlife 

Task Force 1998, Miller et al. 2001). Requiring anglers to use designated public use trails to access fishing 

areas will help limit this type of disturbance.

Compatibility Determination – Public Fishing
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-51

Disturbance can cause shifts in habitat use, abandonment of habitat, and increased energy demands on 

affected wildlife (Knight and Cole 1991). Flight in response to disturbance can lower nesting productivity and 

cause disease and death. Knight and Cole (1991) suggest recreational activities occurring simultaneously may 

have a combined negative impact on wildlife. Hammitt and Cole (1998) conclude that the frequent presence of 

humans in wildland areas can dramatically change the normal behavior of wildlife mostly through unintentional 

harassment. 

Seasonal sensitivities can compound the effect of disturbance on wildlife. Examples include regularly flushing 

birds during nesting or causing mammals to flee during winter months, thereby consuming large amounts of 

stored fat reserves. Hammitt and Cole (1998) note that females with young (such as white-tailed deer) are more 

likely to flee from a disturbance than those without young. Year-round fishing may disturb wildlife during 

sensitive periods of their life cycle.

It is anticipated that there will be temporary disturbances to wildlife species because of walking and fishing 

around ponds. Fishing at beaver ponds may have a greater disturbance to birds than walking on pedestrian 

routes. State listed species of concern such as alder flycatchers (Empidonax alnorum), American bitterns 

(Botaurus lentiginosus), Virginia rails (Rallus limicola), and American black ducks (Anas rubripes) nest and 

feed in and around beaver ponds. Due to the scarcity and small size of ponds in Canaan Valley, birds likely 

concentrate in these waters and therefore are vulnerable to disturbance by anglers. Prolonged angler presence 

at these areas could disrupt normal nesting behavior and possibly disturb nests in the vegetation surrounding 

the ponds. Waterbirds may also be prevented from resting and feeding on water bodies by angler presence 

(Havera et al. 1992). 

Similar impacts may occur from fishing along riparian corridors. Stream and river corridors are known to 

be important areas for a variety of wildlife species and typically have greater species diversity then other 

habitats (Technical Riparian Work Group 1992, Trails and Wildlife Task Force 1998). Therefore, disturbance to 

riparian corridors may have a disproportionate affect on wildlife using refuge habitats.

Impacts to wildlife may be indirectly caused through erosion and subsequent sedimentation of streams and 

vernal pools because of foot travel over bare soils and around drainages. Amphibians lay eggs in the shallow 

pools that surround beaver ponds on the Main Tract during spring and summer. Species such as spotted 

salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum), red-spotted newt (Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens), pickerel 

frog (Rana palustris), American toad (Bufo americanus americanus), and wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) nest 

and feed in these locations. Anglers using beaver ponds could potentially disturb and destroy egg masses in the 

early spring by wading in and through these shallow pools. 

Sedimentation can directly kill aquatic invertebrates, which impacts the success of amphibian larvae and 

adults (Sadoway 1981). Observations by refuge staff in 2002 documented numerous occurrences of amphibian 

egg masses that failed after becoming coated in sediment from eroding trails and roads used by vehicles 

nearby. Bartgis and Berdine (1991) reported that sedimentation was damaging habitat in Canaan Valley and 

could cause impacts to the rare plants, water quality, and possibly affect habitat of the southern water shrew 

(Sorex palustris punctulatus), a state species of concern. The effects of sedimentation were a direct result of 

vehicle use and road construction prior to the refuge’s acquisition of the property. Since then measures have 

been taken to remediate erosion and sedimentation issues, particularly on trails that are open to public access. 

Additionally, since the refuge has now acquired lands within the acquisition boundary, it can prohibit vehicle 

use and road construction in certain areas so as to minimize these types of impacts. 

No impact is expected on the West Virginia northern flying squirrel, another state species of concern, because 

this species mostly occurs in upland forested habitat, where fishing generally does not occur.

Anticipated disturbances to wildlife are likely to be short term and infrequent based on staff observations 

of low interest in fishing remote areas of the refuge. Because much of the refuge, particularly the remote 

beaver ponds and river corridors, is not stocked with game fish, interest in fishing these areas is generally low. 

Sedimentation impacts will likely be minor from foot travel. Long-term impacts may include certain wildlife 

species avoiding trail corridors as a result of this use. Over time, however, the use of trails for angler access is 

not significant compared to the use of trails for other approved uses and will not create significant cumulative 

effects on wildlife disturbance. Observations from refuge staff and anecdotal reports suggest that less than 10 

Compatibility Determination – Public Fishing
B-52 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

persons per month fish the subject ponds in the northern portion of the refuge. Based on the staff observations 

on numbers of anglers and locations of fishing activities, it is not expected that disturbance impacts will be 

significant.

Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species: The federally threatened Cheat Mountain salamander 

(Plethodon nettingi) is found on the refuge. This species is found associated with high elevation forested 

habitat, typically with some component of red spruce (Picea rubens) and/or Eastern hemlock (Tsuga 

canadensis) and it is likely that it is restricted to the cooler mountain slopes and ridges. Primary access 

for fishing will occur only in the lower elevations and valley floor and will not traverse known or potentially 

occupied habitat of Cheat Mountain salamanders. Therefore, there are no adverse affects to this species as a 

result of allowing fishing access. 

Indiana bats (Myotis soldalis) were documented on the refuge for the first time through acoustical monitoring 

conducted by the U.S. Forest Service in 2003 (Ford 2003). Indiana bats were found foraging at two locations 

in the south end of the refuge. The refuge began conducting acoustical surveys in 2005. These surveys have 

documented three likely Indiana bat observations in the same location as the 2003 survey during 2005, 2007, 

and 2008. Additionally, acoustical surveys documented one new location for the species during 2007. Indiana 

bat calls have been documented from the refuge in the months of May, July, August, and September. However, 

since fishing is restricted to day time hours, and must comply with the stipulations of this document, any 

potential negative effects on this nocturnal species are expected to be insignificant. We will periodically 

evaluate this activity to determine any effects it may have. In particular the use of roost trees near beaver 

ponds would be a concern and would be evaluated to determine if fishing created disturbance to roosting bats. 

If evidence of any adverse affects appears, the location(s) of activities will be curtailed or discontinued as 

needed.

User Conflicts: Conflicts between recreational uses are commonly reported in the literature (Chavez et al. 

1993, Watson et al. 1994, Knight and Gutzwiller 1995, Ramthun 1995). Conflicts range from concerns over 

personal safety to certain user groups feeling that they should be given priority over other groups based 

on a past history or other reasons. In the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, there 

was no priority order given to the big six uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation). Based on interviews with individuals and user groups, conflicts 

among groups are not significant in Canaan Valley. This is likely due to the relatively low number of visitors in 

the area as compared with heavy use at conflict sites reported in the literature. 

Fishing is viewed as an effective and justifiable use that enables the public to discover, experience, and enjoy 

the refuge and participate in a priority public use. Potential habitat degradation from angler foot traffic and 

disturbance to breeding/nesting birds and wildlife species warrants monitoring. Due to the low level of fishing 

activity occurring on beaver ponds and rivers on the refuge, no significant impacts to refuge resources are 

anticipated. However if unanticipated impacts are noted, corrective actions will be taken to protect refuge 

resources.

Cultural Resources: There are no known cultural resources on or near the designated access points or any of 

the fishing areas mentioned in this compatibility determination. This use, as described, will not impact cultural 

resources.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

This compatibility determination will be released concurrent with the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/

Environmental Assessment for a 45-day public review and comment period. 

DETERMINATION

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

Compatibility Determination – Public Fishing
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-53

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY

The refuge has developed a list of criteria for determining whether any given route would be appropriate for 

public use, including fishing. These criteria would apply to current and future trails. Criteria are as follows:

Checklist for Existing Routes to Be Eligible for Compatibility Consideration

(Routes must meet all criteria)

1. Route provides an opportunity to view a variety of habitats and wildlife.

2. Route is safe for the access proposed at current use levels.

3. Route requires minimal annual maintenance (i.e, waterbars, stepping stones, etc.) to ensure safe access and to 

prevent further habitat degradation.

4. Route has a low potential for fragmenting habitat or disturbing wildlife populations.

5. Based on existing soils information, less than 50% of the route’s length occupies soil types rated as high or 

very high for compaction and/or erosiveness. The route is not rated as severely limited for hiking trails based 

on the Tucker County Soil Survey.

6. Any route crossing of sensitive soils occupies the shortest possible distance. Organic soil crossings are 

minimized or eliminated.

7. Continued use of the existing route is not likely to cause further wetland alteration or degradation. There is 

low risk that hydrology, soil stability, sensitive plant communities, riparian zones, and wildlife habitats would 

be adversely affected. 

8. Route predominately occupies modifi ed substrate (graveled, compacted, or fi lled) like logging roads and rail 

grades. 

9. Route is not incised greater than 1 foot deep over 10% of its total length.

Additional Stipulations for Fishing Access Include:

— Fishing is allowed during refuge open hours: between one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset.

— No overnight parking or camping is permitted.

— No discarding monofilament line.

— Signs necessary for visitor information, safety, and traffic control are installed and maintained as necessary. 

— The refuge conducts an outreach program to promote public awareness and compliance with refuge public 

use regulations. 

— Fishing access is restricted to designated trails and access points. The designated access points are A- frame 

road, Delta 13 road, Old Timberline road, and Timberline road to access the Blackwater River. 

— Anglers accessing the Blackwater River by watercraft enter the refuge from outside refuge boundaries or 

one of the designated access points on the refuge. The use of gasoline motors is prohibited on the refuge.

— Routes designated for public access are monitored annually to determine if they continue to meet the 

compatibility criteria. Biological inventories continue to provide baseline information to measure change. 

Should monitoring and evaluation of the use indicate that the compatibility criteria are or will be exceeded, 

appropriate action will be taken to ensure continued compatibility, including modifying or discontinuing the 

use. 

Compatibility Determination – Public Fishing
B-54 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

— Refuge officer patrols include recording visitor numbers, vehicle numbers, visitor activities, and activity 

locations to document current and future levels of refuge use. Patrols also include the routine assessment of 

safety conditions and visitor interactions on refuge routes. Conditions that are or will risk public safety will 

be identified and appropriate action will be promptly taken to correct such conditions. 

— The refuge conducts annual assessments of visitor perceptions of refuge uses and the management of access 

routes. A visitor survey is developed and conducted upon approval. Providing for safe public use through 

proper administration and regulation, public education, and law enforcement will be essential. 

— The possession, use or collection of bait fish (including crayfish and amphibians) is prohibited anywhere on 

the refuge. Exotic fish introductions from bait fish, and movement of aquatic organisms between watersheds, 

has impacted native species and their habitats throughout the state. 

— All anglers must possess a required state fishing license and must comply with all state fishing regulations 

(50 CFR. § 32.6(c)). 

JUSTIFICATION

Fishing seasons and limits are established by the state and adopted by the refuge. These restrictions are 

designed to protect fish populations from overharvest. The refuge has established additional regulations and 

stipulations for refuge lands to protect fish, wildlife, and habitats from potential negative effects. Anticipated 

disturbances to wildlife would be short term and infrequent based on the current level of use. Sedimentation 

impacts from foot travel would be minor. Fishing access is limited to designated trails and access points to 

help minimize potential erosion, sedimentation, soil compaction, and vegetation trampling. Long-term impacts 

may include certain wildlife species avoiding trail corridors as a result of this use over time. However, the 

use of trails by anglers would be a minor component of the overall public use program which allows access on 

designated trails. Additionally, the effects would be limited to the trail corridor and there are larger areas 

off-limits to public access which would not be disturbed by this use. This ensures the refuge would continue 

to conserve and protect the wetlands of Canaan Valley as directed in its established purposes under the 

Emergency Wetland Resources Act (1986). 

Based on the current level of fishing, wildlife disturbance impacts would not be significant. Because the 

majority of the refuge is not stocked with game fish and because it is difficult to access remote beaver ponds 

and river stretches, the level of fishing activity for most of the refuge is not expected to increase significantly. 

To minimize effects on native species, harvest or use of bait fish, crayfish, and amphibians is not authorized 

on refuge lands. This refuge-specific regulation will help ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley as 

directed by the 1979 EIS.

Observations from refuge staff and anecdotal reports suggest that less than 10 persons per month fish the 

subject ponds in the northern portion of the refuge. Because of the relatively low level of use and no expectation 

of a significant increase in use, there would be no significant adverse impacts from wildlife disturbance and 

compaction of soil and vegetation. When conducted in the manner prescribed at the current use level, fishing 

would not adversely affect refuge resources or public safety. Given the low density of anglers, conflicts between 

anglers and other users are minimal, and are addressed through law enforcement, public education, and review 

and updating of state and refuge regulations as needed. 

The majority of the fish that are caught on the refuge are non-native species that are stocked by the state 

on streams and tributaries outside the refuge boundary. These stocked species are further supplemented by 

hatchery releases. The state designs its fish stocking program to ensure that there are surplus fish populations 

to withstand fishing pressure. Therefore, public fishing on the refuge contributes to a balanced conservation 

program, is operated under sound principles of fishery management, and does not prevent the refuge from 

conserving or protecting the fish and wildlife resources of the refuge. Stipulations reduce wetland impacts 

by restricting stream and pond access to public use trails. Wildlife disturbance would be limited to the trail 

and stream corridors and peripheral areas of beaver ponds which are adjacent to public use trials. There are 

stream and pond habitats which are not accessible by public use trail and therefore provide habitat for wildlife 

and wetland plants which will be unaffected by this use. 

Compatibility Determination – Public Fishing
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-55

With the access stipulations provided, the use will not have significant effects on the protection and 

conservation of wetland resources or the protection and management of migratory birds which will ensure the 

refuge meets requirements for the Wetland Resources Act (1986) and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

(1929). Since access methods are restricted and observed use is low, it is unlikely that continued public fishing 

will affect the ability of the refuge to protect, restore, and manage wildlife and their habitats, as directed by 

the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. As long as it is conducted according to the stipulations listed above, fishing 

would not materially interfere with the refuge purposes of ensuring the ecological integrity of the Canaan 

Valley, conserving and protecting fish and wildlife resources, conserving wetlands, and protecting migratory 

birds. Fishing also supports the mission of the Refuge System by providing resource benefits to the American 

people.

Allowing fishing furthers the mission of the Refuge System by providing access to renewable natural resources 

for the benefit of the American public while conserving fish, wildlife, and plant resources on the refuge. For 

the reasons stated above, fishing would not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the Refuge 

System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. Monitoring will be conducted to ensure this 

use remains compatible. If significant impacts are found, corrective actions will be taken to protect refuge 

resources.

Refuge Manager 

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

 (Signature) (Date)

MANDATORY 15 YEAR RE-EVALUATION DATE

 

 

 (Date)

LITERATURE CITED

Bartgis, R., and A. Berdine. 1991. A preliminary assessment of biological resources in the Canaan Valley of 

 West Virginia. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 

Bell, S. 2002. National Resource Conservation Service. Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 4pp.

Chavez, D. J, P. L. Winter, and J. M. Baas. 1993. Recreational mountain biking: a management perspective. 

 Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 11(3): 29-36.

Ford, M. 2003. Memorandum to Canaan Valley NWR - Acoustic bat monitoring. U.S. Department of 

 Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Parsons, WV. 1pp.

Compatibility Determination – Public Fishing
B-56 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Fortney, R. H. 1975. The vegetation of Canaan Valley, West Virginia: A taxonomic and ecological study. 

 Morgantown, WV, West Virginia University. PhD. Dissertation: 208 pp.

Fortney, R. J. 1997. A chronology of post logging plant succession in Canaan Valley through the development 

 of a series of vegetation maps from 1945 to present. Salem-Teikyo University, West Virginia. 38 pp.

Havera, S. P., L. R. Boens, M. M. Georgi, and R. T. Shealy. 1992 . Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk 

 Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 290-298.

Hammitt, W. E., and D. N. Cole. 1998. Wildlife Recreation: Ecology and Management (2nd edition). New York: 

 John Wiley & Sons. 361p.

Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. Transactions of 

 the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference pp. 238-247.

Knight, R. L., and K. J. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through management and 

 research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 371 pp.

Kuss, F. R. 1986. A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation impacts. Environmental 

 Management, 10:638-650.

Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

 communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169.

Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife 

 Society Bulletin 29(1): 124-132.

Pomerantz, G. A., D. J. Decker, G. R. Goff, and K. G. Purdy. 1988. Assessing impact of recreation on wildlife: a 

 classification scheme. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:58-62.

Ramthun, R. 1995. Factors in user group conflict between hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences 

 17:159-169.

Rizzo, A. 2002. Personal Communications with Al Rizzo, Soil Scientist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 

 17-19, 2002.

Sadoway, K. L. 1986. Effects of intensive forest management on amphibians and reptiles of Vancouver Island: 

 problem analysis. Research, B. C. Ministries of Environment and Forests. IWIFR-23. Victoria, B. C.

Technical Riparian Work Group. 1992. Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide. U.S. Forest Service 

 Intermountain Region. 60pp.

Trails and Wildlife Task Force. 1998. Planning trails with wildlife in mind: A handbook for trail planners. 

 Colorado State Parks, Denver Co. 51pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Acquisition 

 of lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of the Interior - 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final Environmental Assessment - Acquisition of lands for the Canaan 

 Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 50 pp.

Watson, A. E., M. J. Niccolucci, and D. R. Williams. 1994. The nature of conflict between hikers and 

 recreational stock users in the John Muir Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research 26(4): 372-385.

Compatibility Determination – Public Fishing
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-57

Whittaker, D., and R. L. Knight. 1998. Understanding wildlife responses to humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

 26:312–317. 

Zeedyk, B. 2002. Summary Report of Road Related Wetlands Impacts of the Canaan Valley refuge. 5 pp.

Attachment: Map B-2. Public Use

Compatibility Determination – Public Fishing
B-58 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Public Use Map B-2
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-59

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE

Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation

REFUGE NAME

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY 

The establishment of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was first approved in an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) released on May 30, 1979. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

decided to await the outcome of litigation surrounding a proposed storage hydroelectric facility before pursuing 

any further action. The approval of the refuge was affirmed by the Service in a 1994 Final Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact on July 11, 1994, which confirmed the adequacy of the 

previously-approved 1979 EIS. The refuge was officially established when the first tract of land was acquired 

on August 11, 1994. The Service has acquired lands for the Canaan Valley refuge under the following 

authorities:

1. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)]

2. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901b]

3. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 [16 U.S.C. 715d]

REFUGE PURPOSES 

The refuge was established to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and the continued availability 

of its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources to the citizens of West Virginia and the United States (USFWS 

1979, 1994). Additional refuge purposes derived from the legislative authorities are as follows:

(1) “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)); 

(2) “... for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide 

and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions.” 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986; 16 U.S.C. 3901(b)); and,

(3) “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929; 16 U.S.C. 715d).

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is “to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans.” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997).

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? 

The uses are wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation accessed 

by walking or hiking on established roads and trails, or by using non-motorized boats. Wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation are priority uses of the Refuge System under the 

Compatibility Determination – Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation
B-60 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). While boating is not a priority 

public use, it facilitates visitor participation in all six priority public uses (fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation). 

Other Supporting Uses: Vehicular Use, Horseback riding, Bicycling, Cross-country skiing, and Snowshoeing, 

are addressed separately in individual compatibility determinations.

(b) Where will these uses be conducted? 

These uses have been allowed and will continue to be allowed on designated roads and trails in all Serviceowned areas open to the public. These areas include, but are not limited to the nearly 30 miles of existing 

designated roads and trails listed below (see Map B-2 for trail locations): 

Forest Road (FR) 80 - 2.2 miles 

Idleman’s Run Road - 0.2 miles 

Idleman’s Run Trail - 0.4 miles 

Freeland Trail - 0.24 miles

Beall Trails - 4.5 miles 

Swinging Bridge Trail - 1.1 miles 

Brown Mountain Trail - 2.4 miles 

Brown Mountain Overlook Trail- 2 miles 

A-Frame Road - 4.8 miles 

Cabin Mountain Trail - 2 miles 

Cabin Mountain Spur - 0.8 miles 

Sand Run Trail - 0.9 miles 

South Glade Run Crossing - 0.8 miles

Middle Valley Trail - 6.2 miles 

Blackwater View Trail - 1.4 miles 

Founder’s (Valley) Overlook - 0.1 miles 

In the Service-preferred alternative of the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)/Environmental 

Assessment (EA), the refuge proposes to add the following trails to increase connections between existing 

trails on the refuge: 

■ Connect Beall Trails to Middle Valley Trail 

■ Connect Brown Mountain Overlook to Camp 70 Loop to make a large loop 

■ Coordinate with Canaan Valley Institute and other partners to connect Swinging Bridge trail to 

Cortland Road 

The refuge will evaluate the effects and alternatives to these additional trails in a separate EA. Trail 

construction and location criteria will follow the conditions established for the existing trail system and will be 

evaluated based on established trail criteria presented in Stipulations for Compatibility.

The refuge permits access on Service-owned lands for non-motorized boats on the Blackwater River and 

associated tributaries. This draft CCP/EA proposes to improve existing launch sites. 

Any of the above uses may also be allowed on any additional lands acquired by the Service in the future. 

(c) When will the uses be conducted? 

These uses occur throughout the year when the refuge is open to the public. Currently the refuge is open daily 

from one-hour before sunrise until one-hour after sunset. 

(d) How will the uses be conducted? 

Visitors enter the refuge at public entry points or drive to refuge parking areas and walk from there. To 

participate in these activities, visitors may park vehicles at refuge parking areas, along the shoulders of 

designated refuge roads and trails, and along public roads. 

Compatibility Determination – Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-61

Wildlife observation and photography occur on an individual or group basis. To accommodate other users 

and promote a positive wildlife observation experience, we encourage smaller group sizes (i.e., less than 10 

members). 

Information kiosks identify the roads and trails open for travel and explain permitted public uses. Designated 

wildlife observation trails on the refuge are described and interpreted in the trail brochures. As trail 

connections are made, refuge brochures and kiosks will be updated to show all designated trails. Parking lots 

and kiosks have been constructed at the trailheads of refuge trails. 

Boating access is currently provided by allowing hand launch and retrieval of small, non-motorized water craft 

where accessible. 

Contingent on available staffing and funding, the draft CCP/EA also proposes expanding or enhancing these 

four priority public uses through a variety of methods, including but not limited to:

A. WILDLIFE OBSERVATION AND PHOTOGRAPHY

■ If the refuge gains ownership over the portion of Camp 70 road that is within the refuge acquisition 

boundary, repair and maintain the road as a trail open to pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle use. 

■ Allow overnight parking, by permit, at the top of Forest Road (FR) 80 to access the Dolly Sods 

Wilderness Area.

■ Construct an interpretive kiosk and parking area where A-frame Rd. enters the refuge. 

■ Construct a photo/observation blind along the trail at the end of A-Frame Rd. 

■ Improve existing boat launch sites and create two new ones,

B. INTERPRETATION

■ Increase the number of on-site and off-site interpretive programs.

■ Develop the Freeland Trail as a self-guided interpretive trail. 

■ Provide guided interpretive programs to the refuge’s Research Natural Area that highlight the wetland 

ecosystem of Canaan Valley.

■ Develop additional interpretive signs for other trails and kiosks.

■ Develop a professional traveling exhibit.

■ Create a larger meeting room in the vicinity of the visitor center. 

■ Open the visitor center daily during times of peak visitation.

■ Recruit work camper volunteers and local and part-time resident volunteers to staff the visitor center.

C. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

■ Conduct increased outreach to area schools about opportunities to use the refuge and its library.

■ Increase outreach efforts to communities that are within an hour’s drive of the refuge.

■ Present six to eight programs in the schools per year.

Compatibility Determination – Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation
B-62 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

■ Develop and present environmental education workshops for teachers, in line with state education 

standards. 

■ Construct an environmental education pavilion on the Beall Trail in the vicinity of the Blackwater River. 

(e) Why are these uses being proposed? 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act defines wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation as priority public uses that, if compatible, are to receive our 

enhanced consideration over other general public uses. Authorizing these uses will provide opportunities for 

the public to enjoy wildlife and plants on the refuge in accordance with law, and it will produce better-informed 

public advocates for Service programs.

These uses will provide opportunities for visitors to observe and learn about wildlife and wild lands at their 

own pace in both structured and unstructured environments, and observe wildlife in their natural habitats 

firsthand. These four priority uses provide visitors with opportunities to enjoy refuge resources and gain 

a better understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife, wild lands ecology, the relationships of plant 

and animal populations in an ecosystem, and wildlife management. These activities will enhance public 

understanding of natural resource management programs and ecological concepts, enable the public to better 

understand the problems facing our wildlife and wild lands resources, help visitors to better understand 

how they affect wildlife and other natural resources, and learn about the Service’s role in conservation and 

restoration. 

Photographers will gain opportunities to photograph wildlife in its natural habitat. These opportunities will 

increase the publicity and advocacy of Service programs. Photography provides wholesome, safe, outdoor 

recreation in a scenic setting, and entices those who come strictly for recreational enjoyment to participate in 

the educational facets of our public use program and become advocates for the refuge and the Service.

Visitors need a way to access these priority uses. By allowing visitors to walk, hike, and use non-motorized 

boats in designated areas of the refuge, we are providing access to these important priority public uses with 

minimal impacts to sensitive wildlife and habitat.

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

The following list estimates the required costs for the refuge to administer and manage its current programs 

for wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation. They do not include the 

costs of new construction, kiosks, signs and other costs associated with alternative B (the Service-preferred 

alternative). These costs are described in appendix E in a Refuge Operating and Needs and Service Asset 

Maintenance Management System data list. They also do not cover un-anticipated costs such as participation in 

search and rescue operations. The refuge officer is the primary contact for any emergency operations on the 

refuge, however local resources are available to assist and provide significant resources if necessary. Because 

such an incident is uncommon and unpredictable, these costs are not assumed in the resources estimate below.

COSTS

Staff time associated with administration of this use is related to assessing the need for road and trail 

maintenance and repair, maintaining kiosks, maintaining gates, maintaining traffic counters and recording 

collected data, maintaining sign-posting roads and trails, informing the public about new refuge uses, 

conducting visitor use surveys, analyzing visitor use patterns, monitoring the effects of public uses on refuge 

resources and visitors, and providing information to the public about the use. Boating costs are included in 

these costs.

Annual costs associated with the administration of trail use on the refuge are estimated below:

Road maintenance and repair: (filling significant potholes, maintaining water bars, cleaning culverts, brush 

 clearing) sign installation and repair, trail evaluation and planning

■ WG-10 Equipment Operator for 28 work days = $7361.68

Compatibility Determination – Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-63

Planning trail connections, working with partners

■ GS-13 Refuge Manager for 21 working days = $9455.04

Planning and monitoring road conditions and supervising staff to monitor pedestrian travel and its effects on 

environment and other visitors

■ GS-11/12 Deputy Refuge Manager for 7 work days = $2128.50

Law enforcement, monitoring trail users and their interactions with each other, visitor services, and sign 

maintenance needs while conducting other LE activities.

■ GS-9 Refuge Officer for 40 work days = $9830.40 

Monitoring environmental effects of pedestrian travel

■ GS-12 Wildlife Biologist for 7 work days (training & inspection) = $2572.64, 

■ GS-11 Wildlife Biologist for 14 work days (monitoring) = $4161.92

■ GS-7 Biological Science Technician for 14 work days (monitoring) = $2812.32

Providing information to the public, working with and training Adopt a Trail volunteers, evaluating and 

planning trail improvements, and analyzing traffic counter and user data

■ GS-11 Visitor Services Manager for 20 work days = $7060.80

Vehicle fuel / law enforcement patrols = $1000

Heavy equipment fuel = $600

Total Estimated Costs = $46,983.30

 FY 2009 Budget Allocations:

Employee Salaries and benefits = $624,039.53

Fixed costs (utilities, fuel, administrative) = $211,415.23

Base maintenance = $50,000

Discretionary Funds (maps, printing, etc.) = $62,243.32

Total Available Funds for FY 2009 = $947,698.08

The financial and staff resources necessary to provide and administer these uses at their current levels are 

now available. We expect the resources to continue in the future, subject to availability of appropriated funds. 

As stated above, we would need additional resources to expand and enhance these uses as described in the 

draft CCP/EA.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE 

Following are descriptions of potential adverse effects on natural resources of wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation accessed by walking, hiking, and non-motorized 

boating in authorized areas within the refuge. Effects of other modes of access (e.g., snow-shoeing, crosscountry skiing) are addressed in separate documents. 

Compatibility Determination – Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation
B-64 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality: Visitor use has the potential to contaminate the Blackwater River 

and its tributaries through soil sedimentation from hiking, canoeing, and kayaking into streams and runoff 

of petroleum products from parking lots. Plans for new visitor trails, an observation platform along A-Frame 

Road, an environmental education pavilion, and parking lot construction may also cause short-term adverse 

impacts from soil runoff and sedimentation into the refuge’s water resources. A more detailed discussion of the 

impacts of these construction projects will be addressed in a subsequent environmental assessment after the 

final CCP for the refuge is approved.

Foot travel—The refuge minimizes adverse effects on water resources in a variety of ways. Refuge staff 

routinely monitor roads and trails for damage and remediate problem areas as needed. There may be additional 

impacts to water resources where new trails cross the refuge’s rivers, streams, and tributaries increasing the 

potential short-term and long-term downstream erosion and sedimentation. However, the refuge will maintain 

trails to minimize erosion and adverse impacts to hydrology and water quality. Additional visitor use also 

increases the potential for contaminating rivers, streams, and open water through the runoff of petroleum 

products from parking lots. Refuge parking lots are not located directly adjacent to streams, rivers, or other 

wetlands. Additionally, parking lots are graveled and are therefore more porous than impervious surfaces such 

as tar. 

The construction of boardwalks on some trails may result in short-term localized effects to hydrology and 

water quality during construction. By providing a path for users to cross over the wetlands and not through 

them, long-term adverse effects to hydrology and water quality will be minimized. 

Boating—The refuge is planning to provide improved boat launch sites, which would benefit water resources 

as a whole by concentrating use to specific locations; however, adverse impacts may be observed at these sites. 

Increasing boat access would increase the risk of spreading aquatic invasive species in refuge waterways and 

would increase the risk of stream bank erosion and siltation. In addition, an increase in recreational boating 

activities might lead to river and stream contamination from trash and surface run off. By improving these 

launch sites, the refuge will minimize risks of stream bank erosion and siltation into refuge waterways. Public 

outreach would notify those visitors of proper precautions, including carrying out all trash and methods to 

reduce the spread of aquatic invasive species. Refuge law enforcement will also contact boaters to provide 

information on aquatic invasive species and monitor launch areas for invasive infestations. This would help 

minimize risks associated with visitor use of waterways on the refuge. 

Effects on Vegetation: To facilitate wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation, we would allowing hiking access and boating access on designed roads and trails. Short-term 

effects consist of the deterioration of plant material, whereas long-term effects of trampling include direct 

and indirect effects on vegetation and soils like diminishing soil porosity, aeration and nutrient availability 

through soil compaction (Kuss 1986, Roovers et al. 2004). Compaction of soils thus limits the ability of plants, 

particularly rare and sensitive species, to revegetate affected areas (Hammitt and Cole 1998). Kuss (1986) 

found that plant species adapted to wet or moist habitats are the most sensitive and increased moisture 

content reduces the ability of the soil to support recreational traffic. Where adverse impacts to vegetation are 

observed, the refuge would take necessary measures, such as remediation and trail closures, to restore plant 

communities.

It is anticipated that allowing use on designated routes will cause some vegetation loss. Foot travel may 

increase root exposure and trampling effects, however it is anticipated that under current and projected use 

the incidence of these problems will be minor. Designated routes for pedestrian travel consist of former logging 

roads with hardened surfaces or are existing trails that have been used for many years. Designated routes do 

not have any known occurrences of rare plant species on their surface or soils subject to compaction that would 

be impacted by this use. Some rare plants have been documented in habitat adjacent to trails. Users leaving 

designated trails could have impacts to adjacent vegetation. Trails will be monitored, problem areas will be 

identified, and appropriate restoration and protection efforts will be made. 

Boating—Boating may adversely affect vegetation in several ways. Direct impacts on vegetation can result 

from portaging boats over stream banks and through wetland vegetation. Riparian soils and habitat are 

sensitive, and negative effects on vegetation are likely to occur along stream and river banks where visitors 

launch canoes, kayaks, and other non-motorized boats. To help protect sensitive riparian vegetation, we propose 

Compatibility Determination – Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-65

to improve existing boat launch sites. Improvement will primarily focus on adding gravel to small sections of 

the bank to create a stable launch area and creating small gravel parking areas nearby. Refuge boat access 

sites and trails will be located away from sensitive wetlands, peat lands, and rare plants under all alternatives. 

Habitat features important for trout, such as overhanging banks, will also be protected from disturbance. 

These efforts will help mitigate risks associated with visitor use of waterways on the refuge.

Effects on Soils: Trail use on the refuge could adversely impact soils through compaction, erosion, and 

sedimentation. 

Foot travel—Soils can be compacted and eroded as a result of continued use of pedestrian routes. The Mauch 

Chunk-derived soil in Canaan Valley is particularly vulnerable to mechanical erosion when the vegetation has 

been removed (Rizzo 2002). If compacted, Mauch Chunk soils can facilitate rapid water runoff that accelerates 

erosion down slope (Rizzo 2002). Although it is unlikely foot travel would create highly erosive conditions, lug 

soles on hiking boots can exacerbate the problem.

There would be localized soil compaction and loss of productive soil where soils are removed or surfaced for 

observation platforms, environmental education pavilion, parking lots, kiosks, roads, and trails and in adjacent 

areas where vehicles and heavy equipment are used for site access and preparation work. These impacts would 

constitute unavoidable adverse impacts from refuge infrastructure improvements but would be short-term 

and temporary as restoration and revegetation of construction sites would be prioritized. Additionally, trail 

construction projects may cause temporary disturbance to improve trails but would lead to more stable and 

sustainable trails over the long term.

Construction and maintenance of trails would result in short-term and long-term adverse impacts to soils. To 

provide connectivity to already existing trails, we are proposing three new trails. In cases where exact trail 

location has not been determined, the refuge plans to use existing logging roads and avoid wetlands where 

possible to minimize the impact from and extent of new trail development. New trail construction, estimated 

at no greater than 7.5 miles, will cause short-term impacts to soils. Impacts of new trail construction will be 

evaluated in a supplemental environmental assessment.

The creation of a boardwalk to connect Camp 70/Delta 13 trail to Brown Mountain Overlook trail will create 

short-term direct impacts to soils through trail construction. No construction other than placement of 

boardwalk pilings would be done in wetlands so there would be short-term localized effects to wetland soils 

during construction and potential for long-term impacts on wetland plants from the shading effect produced by 

the boardwalk itself. The purpose of the boardwalk is to provide a new trail connection which will help prevent 

greater long-term negative impacts to sensitive wetlands soils. By providing a path for users to cross over the 

wetlands and not through them, long-term effects to unsuitable and highly compactable soils will be avoided. 

Over the long-term, the risk of erosion and sedimentation problems that might affect soils in these habitats 

would increase with increased visitor usage and trail use. At current levels the trail system supports hiking. 

Wetland complexes adjacent to active trails, like the Middle Valley trail and South Glade Run Crossing trail, 

would be of particular concern as degradation from hiking would increase the potential for soil compaction, 

erosion, and sedimentation into adjacent wetlands and streams. Trail surveys completed in 2002 and again in 

2005 showed an improvement in trail conditions. For example, following refuge acquisition and as a result of 

initial trail maintenance, instances of erosion dropped by 58% and number of bootleg trails dropped by 38%. 

This indicates that the current level of trail use and maintenance results in a sustainable level of trail use. In 

fact, trail conditions have improved relative to when the refuge first acquired the property. Future monitoring 

efforts will document trail conditions to focus management actions on locations which will minimize erosion and 

sedimentation as a result of public use activities.

Boating—Soil impacts related to boating are confined to launch sites. Riparian soils and habitat are sensitive, 

and soil erosion and compaction are likely to occur along stream and river banks where visitors launch canoes, 

kayaks, and other non-motorized boats. To minimize negative effects associated with boating, we propose 

to designate and improve two to three boat launch sites. Improvement will primarily focus on adding gravel 

to small sections of the bank to create a stable launch area and creating small gravel parking areas nearby. 

Impacts of creating new boat launch sites will be evaluated in a supplemental environmental assessment.

Compatibility Determination – Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation
B-66 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Effects on Wildlife: Short-term and long-term adverse impacts would be expected for wildlife populations 

in relation to increasing trail miles and visitor use. Disturbances will vary by wildlife species involved and the 

type, level, frequency, duration, and the time of year activities occur. Beale and Monaghan (2004) found that 

adverse effects to wildlife increase as number of users increase. The study found that an animal’s response 

to one visitor walking down a trail is entirely different than its response to a group of users walking down a 

trail. The refuge recognizes that large group sizes may amplify negative effects to wildlife. Therefore, groups 

larger than 10 are required to notify the refuge prior to visiting to determine if a special use permit would be 

needed. This will enable the refuge to understand which trails are preferred by large groups, and to monitor 

any potential excessive wildlife disturbance created by large groups. Having the ability to monitor these kinds 

of disturbances will also enable the refuge to mitigate impacts associated with large groups. Examples of 

mitigation may include directing large groups to less sensitive habitats during breeding seasons or assigning 

refuge staff to lead or meet with the group while on refuge lands.

Disturbance can cause shifts in habitat use, abandonment of habitat and increased energy demands on affected 

wildlife (Knight and Cole 1991). Miller et al. (1998) found bird abundance and nesting activities (including nest 

success) increased as distance from a recreational trail increased in both grassland and forested habitats. In 

this study, common species (e.g., American Robins) were found near trails and rare species (e.g., Blackburnian 

warblers) were found farther from trails. In some cases there is a clear link between the extent of disturbance 

and either the survival or reproductive success of individuals (e.g., Schulz and Stock 1993), but in many cases 

disturbance acts in a more subtle way, by reducing access to resources such as food supplies or nesting sites 

(Gill et al. 1996). Bird flight in response to disturbance can lower reproductive success by exposing individuals 

and nests to predators. For recreation activities that occur simultaneously (hiking, biking, and horseback 

riding) there would likely be compounding negative impacts to wildlife (Knight and Cole 1991). 

There is evidence to suggest that species most likely to be adversely affected are those where available 

habitat is limited thus constraining them to stay in disturbed areas and suffer the costs of reduced survival 

or reproductive success (Gill et al. 2001). Because of the diversity of habitats represented on the refuge, its 

rural setting, and adjacency to large tracts of protected lands, any population level effects to wildlife species 

from trail use might be minimized by the abundance of habitat on the refuge and adjacent lands. Additionally, 

trail development has striven to avoid sensitive habitats and extensive open areas to reduce the effects of 

disturbance to wildlife on the refuge. Spreading the disturbance within the most common habitat type on the 

refuge, and the most common habitat type regionally, further reduces the overall effect on wildlife tied to that 

habitat.

Wildlife disturbance may be compounded by seasonal needs. For example, causing mammals to flee during 

winter months would consume stored fat reserves that are necessary to get through the winter. Hammitt and 

Cole (1998) found white-tailed deer females with young are more likely to flee from disturbance than those 

without young. Some species, like warblers, would be negatively affected by disturbance associated with 

birdwatching particularly during the breeding season.

For songbirds, Gutzwiller et al. (1994) found that low levels of human intrusion altered the singing behavior of 

some species. Disturbance may also affect the reproductive fitness of males by hampering territory defense, 

mate selection, and other reproductive functions of vocalizations (Arrese 1987). Disturbance, which leads to 

reduced singing activity, would make males rely more heavily on physical deterrents, which are time- and 

energy-consuming in defending territories (Ewald and Carpenter 1978).

Birds are not the only species that may be adversely affected by human disturbance. Short-term localized 

adverse impacts to fish populations may result from refuge construction and restoration projects that might 

cause soil erosion and sedimentation into refuge waterways. Long-term adverse impacts from increased trail 

miles and trail use might pose another concern to refuge fisheries. Trails that have stream and river crossings 

would likely degrade over time with increased use and contribute to downstream sedimentation and turbidity, 

which has been found to be a stressor to brook trout (Sweka and Hartman 2001) and redside dace (Holm and 

Crossman 1986) populations that are sensitive to habitat degradation. The refuge would monitor stream and 

river crossings closely and remediate any damaged areas to minimize adverse impacts associated with trail 

use.

Compatibility Determination – Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-67

West Virginia northern flying squirrels have been documented on refuge property near the end of FR 80. This 

species has recently been removed from the endangered species list. The recovery plan (USFWS 2001) notes 

that habitat modification may create a competitive advantage for the southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys 

volans), although the extent to which a logging road or trail would create conditions conducive for this are 

unknown. Some research has found northern flying squirrels occupying den sites near logging roads, skid 

trails and on hiking trails (Ford 2002). 

Refuge visitors who choose to boat may cause localized, minor, short-term impacts by disturbing the bottom 

substrate in shallow water. In addition, discarded items such as plastic containers present a risk for waterfowl 

and other birds. 

We will take all necessary measures to minimize all of these impacts, particularly where group educational 

activities are involved. We will evaluate the sites and programs periodically to assess whether they are 

meeting the objectives, and to prevent site degradation. If evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts appears, 

we will rotate the activities to secondary sites, or curtail or discontinue them. We will continue to close areas 

seasonally around active bird nesting sites to minimize human disturbance. We will post and enforce refuge 

regulations, and establish, post, and enforce closed areas. 

Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species: There are two federally listed species known to occur on 

the refuge, and one species that has recently been de-listed, as described in the previous subsection. Cheat 

Mountain salamanders (Plethodon nettingi), listed as threatened, have been documented near the upper 

section of FR 80, and near the cross-country ski trails in that area. Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis), listed 

as endangered, are known to use the refuge’s forested areas for summer foraging and may have a summer 

maternity colony on refuge lands as well. The refuge requested Section 7 informal consultation with the 

Service’s West Virginia Field Office under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) on all the actions in 

alternative B of this draft CCP/EA, including wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and 

interpretation, that could potentially impact listed species. This process resulted in a finding that the proposed 

actions in the draft CCP/EA are not likely to adversely affect the listed species or their associated habitats on 

the refuge. The full Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation form can be found in appendix I of this draft 

CCP/EA.

Cheat Mountain salamanders—This species is sensitive to any habitat changes that remove a forest canopy or 

reduce soil moisture and relative humidity. According to Pauley (1991), trails that receive heavy use resulting 

in bare trail treads could limit movements of Cheat Mountain salamanders and interfere with reproduction. 

Consequently, the refuge limits the use of trails near Cheat Mountain salamander habitat to winter crosscountry skiing. For impacts to salamanders from cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, see the compatibility 

determination that addresses those uses. We are not proposing any changes to current activities on Cheat 

Mountain salamander habitat, so no adverse impacts are expected with these visitor uses. Also, we do not 

anticipate any adverse impacts from use associated with boating since there are no navigable waters in the area 

where this species is known to occur.

Indiana Bats—Based on the bat call surveys, the refuge appears to provide foraging and roosting habitat 

for Indiana bats during the summer and fall, but no known hibernacula or maternity colonies exist in Canaan 

Valley. We are planning to continue mist net surveys to assess the status of Indiana bats within the refuge. If 

maternity and roosting colonies do exist or are likely to become established on the refuge, disturbance from 

visitor use could adversely affect Indiana bats. If roosting colonies are discovered locations for public uses will 

be chosen to avoid these sites. We will periodically evaluate sites and programs to assess whether objectives 

are being met and to prevent site degradation. 

Routes designated for these uses are pre-existing roads and trails, some of which have been in existence 

for many years. No new habitat clearing will be required to accommodate visitor activities; however some 

vegetation clearing will be required for maintenance within trail corridors. Similar to the Cheat Mountain 

salamander, we anticipate that these are not likely to adversely affect Indiana bats because these activities do 

not coincide with the area where this species is known to occur. 

As described, these public uses are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species. 

Compatibility Determination – Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation
B-68 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

This compatibility determination will be made available for public review and comment for 45 days as an 

appendix to the draft CCP/EA for Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. 

DETERMINATION

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY 

The refuge has developed a list of criteria for determining whether any given route would be appropriate for 

public wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education or interpretation. These criteria 

would apply to current and future trails. Criteria are as follows:

Checklist for Existing Routes to Be Eligible for Compatibility Consideration 

(Routes must meet all criteria)

1. Route provides an opportunity to view a variety of habitats and wildlife.

2. Route is safe for the access proposed at current use levels.

3. Route requires minimal annual maintenance (i.e, waterbars, stepping stones, etc.) to ensure safe access and to 

prevent further habitat degradation.

4. Route has a low potential for fragmenting habitat or disturbing wildlife populations.

5. Based on existing soils information, less than 50% of the route’s length occupies soil types rated as high or 

very high for compaction and/or erosiveness. The route is not rated as severely limited for hiking trails based 

on the Tucker County Soil Survey.

6. Any route crossing of sensitive soils occupies the shortest possible distance. Organic soil crossings are 

minimized or eliminated.

7. Continued use of the existing route is not likely to cause further wetland alteration or degradation. There is 

low risk that hydrology, soil stability, sensitive plant communities, riparian zones, and wildlife habitats would 

be adversely affected. 

8. Route predominately occupies modifi ed substrate (graveled, compacted, or fi lled) like logging roads and rail 

grades. 

9. Route is not incised greater than 1 foot deep over 10% of its total length.

Additional stipulations that would apply to ensuring compatibility include:

— Refuge regulations will be posted and enforced. Closed areas will be established as needed, posted, and 

enforced. Signs necessary for visitor information, safety, and traffic control will be kept up to date. 

— The known presence of a threatened or endangered species will preclude any new use of an area until the 

refuge manager determines otherwise. 

— Locations for public uses will be chosen to minimize impacts to wildlife and habitat. We will periodically 

evaluate sites and programs to assess whether objectives are being met and to prevent site degradation. If 

evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts appears, the location(s) of activities will be rotated with secondary 

sites, curtailed, or discontinued. 

Compatibility Determination – Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-69

— Walking, hiking, and boating to facilitate wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and 

interpretation is only compatible on designated roads, trails, and waterways.

— Walking and hiking are restricted to refuge open hours: 1 hour before sunrise until 1 hour after sunset. Boat 

launching and retrieval from refuge lands are restricted to refuge open hours.

— Camping and overnight parking are currently prohibited. However this draft CCP/EA proposes to 

allow overnight parking by special use permit at the end of Forest Road 80 to facilitate visitor access to 

non- refuge lands.

— The refuge conducts an outreach program to promote public awareness and compliance with public use 

regulations on the refuge.

— Group size is encouraged to be no more than 10 persons to promote public safety, accommodate other users, 

and reduce wildlife disturbance. Groups larger than 10 persons must contact the refuge office prior to 

visiting the trail system so the refuge can determine if the group will require a special use permit. Groups 

traveling only on roads shared with vehicles are not required to contact the refuge office or obtain a special 

use permit.

— All routes designated for public access are annually inspected for maintenance needs. Prompt action is taken 

to correct any conditions that risk public safety. Roads and trails are maintained at a level that reasonably 

accounts for safe travel. Roads are not plowed in winter.

— Guidelines to ensure the safety of all participants will be issued in writing to any special use permit holder 

for the activities and will be reviewed before the activity begins. 

— Routes designated for public access are monitored periodically to determine if they continue to meet the 

compatibility criteria (listed above) established by the refuge. Should monitoring and evaluation of the use(s) 

indicate that the compatibility criteria are or will be exceeded, appropriate action will be taken to ensure 

continued compatibility, including modifying or discontinuing the use. 

— Routine law enforcement patrols are conducted throughout the year. The patrols promote education and 

compliance with refuge regulations, monitor public use patterns and public safety, and document visitor 

interaction. . 

— Potential conflicts with other public uses such as hunting will be minimized by using trailhead signs 

and other media to inform the visitors about current public use activities as well as which activities are 

authorized in specific locations throughout the refuge. 

JUSTIFICATION

Environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography are all priority public uses and 

are to receive enhanced consideration on refuges, according to the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. Providing 

increased wildlife dependent recreational opportunities promotes visitor appreciation and support for refuge 

programs as well as habitat conservation efforts in Canaan Valley and elsewhere.

Environmental education and interpretation activities generally support refuge purposes and impacts can 

largely be minimized (Goff et al. 1988). Environmental education and interpretation are public use management 

tools used to develop a resource protection ethic within society. These tools allow us to educate refuge visitors 

about endangered and threatened species management, wildlife management, ecological principles and 

ecological communities. Environmental education and interpretation also instill an ‘ownership’ or ‘stewardship’ 

ethic in visitors. They strengthen Service visibility in the local community. 

The majority of visitors to the refuge are there to view and/or photograph the wildlife and upland, wetland, and 

grassland habitat areas. Some visit to develop an understanding of natural or cultural history. This purpose is 

in accordance with a wildlife-oriented activity and is an acceptable secondary use. There will be some visitor 

impacts from this activity, such as trampling vegetation (Kuss and Hall 1991) and disturbance to wildlife near 

trails (Burger 1981, Klein, 1989); however stipulations to ensure compatibility will make these impacts minimal. 

Compatibility Determination – Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation
B-70 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

For example, wildlife disturbance will be limited to the trail corridor that represents a fraction of the wildlife 

habitat available which will remain un-disturbed. 

By allowing these uses on trails which have been evaluated by refuge staff to meet the criteria presented in 

this document, physical impacts to vegetation, soils, hydrology, wetland communities and ecological integrity 

of Canaan Valley will be minimized. Through proper trail maintenance these impacts will be further reduced. 

Hydrologic and soil impacts were generally inherited with refuge lands and are being remediated through 

routine maintenance operations. These uses will not affect the refuge’s ability to restore impacted lands nor 

will they materially increase sedimentation, erosion or hydrologic impacts on refuge lands.

By limiting the uses to designated trails on a small percentage of the refuge and within the most common 

habitat type, disturbance will be limited and manageable. For this reason disturbance effects will not prevent 

the refuge from fulfilling the purposes of the Fish and Wildlife Act (1956) or the mission of the Refuge 

System for conserving, managing, restoring, and protecting wildlife resources. Through these measures the 

refuge would still be able to fulfill its obligations to ensure the biological integrity of the refuge’s wildlife, 

plant and habitat resources. Since no public use trails occur on the lands acquired under the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of (1929), these uses will have no effect on the protection and management of migratory birds 

on those tracts. The stipulations reduce anticipated impacts and trails occupy predominately upland habitats 

so that these uses will not interfere with the refuge’s ability to protect, manage and conserve the wetland 

resources or the wildlife as directed by the Emergency Wetland Resources Act (1986). Therefore these uses 

will not interfere with the refuge purposes of ensuring the ecological integrity of the Canaan Valley as directed 

by the 1979 EIS. 

These uses will not have an affect on threatened or endangered species. No public use trails are open on lands 

which are occupied by threatened Cheat Mountain salamanders when they are active. The endangered Indiana 

bat is nocturnal and therefore these uses will not affect their foraging activities. No bat roosts have been 

documented on refuge land; however, if future information determines the presence of a roost or maternity 

colony which may be affected by these uses, the refuge will work with the Service’s Ecological Services Office 

to ensure that no adverse affects will occur. 

For the reasons discussed above, these uses will not affect the refuge’s ability to conserve wetlands or 

protect, manage, and restore the wildlife and plant resources, as mandated through the Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act (1986) and the Fish and Wildlife Act (1956), or the mission of the Refuge System. Since public 

use trails do not occur on lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929), these uses will not 

affect the refuge’s ability to protect and manage migratory birds on those tracts. Based on this information, 

we have determined that environmental education and interpretation and wildlife observation and photography 

will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes for which 

the refuge was established. 

Refuge Manager 

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

 (Signature) (Date)

MANDATORY 15 YEAR RE-EVALUATION DATE

 

 (Date)

Compatibility Determination – Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-71

LITERATURE CITED

Arrese, P. 1987. Age, intrusion pressure and defense against floaters by territorial male Song Sparrows. 

 Animal Behavior 35:773-784.

Beale, C. M., and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? Journal of 

 Applied Ecology 41:335-343.

Bell, S. 2002. National Resource Conservation Service. Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 4pp.

Burger, J. 1981. Effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 21:231-241.

Ewald P. W., and F. L. Carpenter. 1978. Territorial responses to energy manipulations in the Anna 

 hummingbird. Oecologia 31: 277-292.

Ford, M. 2002. Personal Communication with Mark Ford, U.S. Forest Service, Parsons, WV. May 3, 2002.

Gill, J. A., W. J. Sutherland, and A. R. Watkinson. 1996. A method to quantify the effects of human 

 disturbance on animal populations. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:786-792.

Goff, G.R., D.J. Decker and G. Pomerantz. 1988. A Diagnostic Tool for Analyzing Visitor Impacts on Wildlife 

 Refuges: A Basis for a Systematic Approach to Visitor Management. Trans. Northeast Sect. Wildl. Soc. 

 45:82.

Gutzwiller, K. J., R. T. Wiedenmann, K. L. Clements, and S. H. Anderson. 1994. Effects of human intrusion on 

 song occurrence and singing consistence in subalpine birds. The Auk 111: 28–37.

Hammitt, W. E., and D. N. Cole. 1998. Wildlife Recreation: Ecology and Management (2nd edition). New York: 

 John Wiley & Sons. 361p.

Hamr, J. 1988. Disturbance behavior of chamois in an alpine tourist area of Austria. Mountain Research and 

 Development 8:65-73.

Holm, E., and E. J. Crossman. 1986. A report on a 1985 attempt to resurvey areas within the Ontario 

 distribution of Clinostomus elongatus, the redside dace and to summarize previous records. 

 Unpublished report on file Fisheries Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Royal 

 Ontario Museum. 11 pages, 9 tables, 13 figs.

Kenney, S.P. and R. L. Knight. 2002. Flight distances of black-billed magpies in different regimes of human 

 density and persecution. Condor 94:545-547.

Klein, M. L. 1989. Effects of high levels of Human Visitation on Foraging Waterbirds at J.N. “Ding” Darling 

 NWR, Sanibel, Florida. Final Report to USFWS. 103pp.

Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. Transactions of 

 the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference pp.238-247.

Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. Pages 51-69 in R.L. Knight and D.N. 

 Cole, editors. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Washington, 

 D.C., Island Press, 372 pp.

Kuss, F. R. 1986. A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation impacts. Environmental 

 Management, 10:638-650.

Kuss, F. R., and C. N. Hall. 1991. Ground flora trampling studies: Five years after closure. Environmental 

 Management 15(5): 715-727.

Compatibility Determination – Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation
B-72 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

MacArthur, R. A., V. Geist, and R. H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain sheep to 

 human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351-358.

Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

 communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169.

Pauley, T. 1991. Cheat Mountain Salamander (Plethodon nettingi) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Newton Corner, MA.

Rizzo, A. 2002. Personal Communications with Al Rizzo, Soil Scientist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 

 17-19, 2002.

Roovers, P., K Verheyen, M. Hermy, and H. Gulinck. 2004. Experimental trampling and vegetation recovery in 

 some forest and heathland communities. Applied Vegetation Science 7:111-118.

Schultz, R. D., and J. A. Bailey. 1978. Responses of national park elk to human activity. Journal of Wildlife 

 Management 42:91-100.

Schultz, R. D., and M. Stock. 1993. Kentish plovers and tourist-competitors on sandy coasts? Wader Study 

 Group Bulletin 68(special issue): 83-92.

Sweka, J. A., and K. J. Hartman. 2001. Effects of turbidity on prey consumption and growth in brook trout 

 and implications for bioenergetics modeling. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 

 386-393. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Acquisition 

 of lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of the Interior - 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final Environmental Assessment - Acquisition of lands for the Canaan 

 Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 50 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Appalachian northern flying squirrel recovery plan. West 

 Virginia Field Office, Elkins, WV.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First 

 Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 260 pp.

Compatibility Determination – Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental Education, and Interpretation
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-73

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE

Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses 

REFUGE NAME

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY 

The establishment of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was first approved in an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) released on May 30, 1979. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

decided to await the outcome of litigation surrounding a proposed storage hydroelectric facility before pursuing 

any further action. The approval of the refuge was affirmed by the Service in a 1994 Final Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact on July 11, 1994, which confirmed the adequacy of the 

previously-approved 1979 EIS. The refuge was officially established when the first tract of land was acquired 

on August 11, 1994. The Service has acquired lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge under the 

following authorities:

1. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)]

2. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901

3. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 [16 U.S.C 715d]

REFUGE PURPOSES 

The refuge was established to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and the continued availability 

of its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources to the citizens of West Virginia and the United States (USFWS 

1979, 1994). Additional refuge purposes derived from the legislative authorities are as follows:

(1) “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)); 

(2) “... for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide 

and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions.” 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986; 16 U.S.C. 3901(b)); and,

(3) “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929; 16 U.S.C. 715d).

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is “...to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans.” National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 16 U.S.C § 668dd(a)(2).

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? 

The use is bicycling. Bicycling is not a priority public use within the National Wildlife Refuge System.

(b) Where will these uses be conducted? 

Bicycling is allowed on designated roads and trails on the refuge. Bicycling may also be allowed on any 

additional trails constructed or opened to the public through this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) or 

other appropriate regulatory process. See map B-2 for locations of bicycling trails.

Compatibility Determination – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-74 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

(c) When will the uses be conducted? 

Bicycle travel is authorized on designated roads and trails year-round. Daily use hours are from one-hour 

before sunrise until one-hour after sunset. This use may be restricted during the late-fall and winter when the 

refuge has priority, wildlife-dependent activities (like deer hunting) in progress. This helps ensure public safety 

and minimize user conflicts. 

(d) How will the uses be conducted? 

Cyclists either travel to the refuge by bicycle and enter at public entry points or transport bicycles by vehicle 

and depart from designated parking areas. Travel is limited to designated roads and trails, where road width 

can accommodate the safe passage of other users. Designated roads and trails also have sufficient viewing 

distance for bicyclists to detect the approach of other users and maneuver to accommodate them.

Information kiosks identify the roads and trails open for travel and explain permitted public uses. Current 

designated wildlife observation trails on the refuge are described in the trail brochure. As trail connections are 

made, refuge brochures and kiosks will be updated to show all designated trails. Parking lots and kiosks have 

been constructed at the trailheads of refuge trails.

Bicycling occurs on individual and group bases. To accommodate other users and promote a positive wildlife 

observation experience, we encourage smaller group sizes (i.e., 10 people or less). Groups larger than 10 

persons must contact the refuge office prior to visiting the trail system so the refuge can determine whether 

the group will require a special use permit. 

Refuge staff will continue to record visitor numbers seen during patrols, types of access, user interactions, 

and potential safety concerns. Safety and information signs will be installed and maintained as necessary. 

Designated roads and trails will be maintained in such a manner as is practical to minimize environmental 

effects such as erosion and sedimentation and to provide safe conditions for public access.

Additional trails also may be constructed or opened to bicycle use. A subsequent environmental assessment 

will evaluate the alternatives and effects of new trails on refuge resources. The refuge would minimize adverse 

impacts by using its trail/route checklist in the stipulations below to determine whether the existing or new 

trail meets established criteria and addresses impacts to soil compaction and erosion potential. If a trail does 

not meet the checklist criteria, appropriate modifications will be made to trail routes either by locating a more 

suitable site or adding infrastructure to minimize short-term, localized and long-term impacts to soils and 

other resources. 

(e) Why are these uses being proposed? 

One of the secondary goals of the Refuge System is to provide opportunities for the public to develop an 

understanding for wildlife wherever those opportunities are compatible. Many visitors participating in this 

activity will be directly engaged in the priority public uses which are identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

The use of bicycles provides increased opportunity for public participation in and access to priority public 

uses such as fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

Bicycling provides visitors with a way to view the refuge’s diverse biological assets. This exposure may lead to a 

better understanding of the importance and value of the Refuge System to the environment and the American 

people. Bicycle access has been allowed on the refuge since the refuge was established in 1994, and was found 

to be compatible in a compatibility determination signed August 1, 2003.

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

The resources necessary to provide and administer road and trail use are available within current and 

anticipated refuge budgets. Staff time associated with administration of this use is related to assessing the 

need for road and trail maintenance and repair, infrastructure maintenance, recording collected data, signposting roads and trails, informing the public about new refuge uses, conducting visitor use surveys, analyzing 

visitor use patterns, monitoring the effects of public uses on refuge resources and visitors, and providing 

information to the public about the use. These activities would be conducted in conjunction and are not additive 

to the activities outlined in the “Wildlife Observation and Photography,” and “Environmental Education and 

Interpretation” compatibility determinations; therefore bicycling would not require additional staffing or 

resources. 

Compatibility Determination – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-75

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF USE 

Bicycling has the potential to affect a variety of migratory and resident wildlife and their habitats. Possible 

negative effects include disturbing wildlife, removing or trampling vegetation, littering, vandalism, and 

entering closed areas. Refuge staff will monitor the impacts of this use on roads and trails to assess potential 

negative effects. The refuge trail monitoring plan evaluates physical impact monitoring of the trail bed 

including percent trail incision, exposed roots, and puddles. Additionally it measures numbers of “bootleg 

trails” and trail width. The established criteria are used to evaluate when the level of use or the way the public 

is using the trail becomes incompatible with the protection of the physical resources (soils, vegetation) the 

refuge is charged to protect. In the event of persistent disturbance to habitat or wildlife, the activity will be 

restricted or discontinued.

Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality: Visitor use has the potential to contaminate refuge wetlands, 

and the Blackwater River and its tributaries by introducing soil sedimentation from bicycling and runoff of 

petroleum products from parking lots into streams. Trail maintenance may cause short term erosion and 

sedimentation in area waters. There may be additional impacts to water resources where new trails cross the 

refuge’s rivers, streams, and tributaries increasing the potential short-term and long-term downstream erosion 

and sedimentation. The impact of new trail development will be addressed in a subsequent environmental 

assessment. If visitor use increases over time the potential for contaminating rivers, streams, and open water 

through the runoff of petroleum products from parking lots can be expected to increase as well. 

Roads and trails used for bicycle travel can affect the hydrology of an area, primarily through alteration of 

drainage patterns. Bartgis and Berdine (1991) note that roads and trails can divert water from their original 

drainage patterns in Canaan Valley. This results in some drainages receiving less water and therefore 

becoming drier, while others are forced to carry more water resulting in accelerated erosion and increased 

water levels. Zeedyk (2002) documented many instances in Canaan Valley where existing roads and trails were 

channeling water away from historical wetlands and in some cases causing erosion and sedimentation of bog 

and other wetland communities. These problems have profoundly if not irreversibly altered the extent, depths, 

characteristics and function of the wetlands on the Main Tract (Zeedyk 2002). The effects of these trails and 

roads were a direct result of vehicle use and road construction prior to the refuge’s acquisition of the property. 

Since then measures have been taken to remediate erosion and sedimentation issues, particularly on trails 

that are open to public access. Furthermore, since the refuge has now acquired lands within the acquisition 

boundary, it can prohibit vehicle use and road construction in certain areas so as to minimize these types of 

impacts. 

Many of the roads evaluated are not open to public use and have been or are planned to be restored to minimize 

hydrologic impacts. The old roads currently in public use were evaluated for their potential impact to wetland 

resources and their continued use will not substantially increase their historical impact to refuge wetlands. 

We will focus maintenance and restoration activities to ensure a quality public use experience. Routine 

maintenance to redirect water and repair existing erosion is required to sustain bicycling routes due to the 

erosive nature of some soils on refuge trails. Rizzo 2002, Zeedyk 2002). If access occurs when conditions are 

wet, bicycle tires can create narrow ruts in the trail bed. If this occurs on a slope, water will channel in these 

ruts and accelerate erosion. Trail work to move water off the trail bed and harden areas which are susceptible 

to erosion is necessary to mitigate this impact. Much of this work has been conducted since the 2002 

evaluations by refuge staff and volunteers. Regular trail work is conducted to move water from the trail bed 

and reconstruct trails for proper drainage. This reduces the overall impact of the trail and the use of bicycles 

on the trail to the hydrology of refuge wetlands. This work is not additional to the regular annual maintenance 

required to facilitate other public access methods.

The refuge minimizes adverse effects on water resources in a variety of ways. Refuge staff routinely monitors 

roads and trails for damage and remediates problem areas as needed. Trail maintenance is conducted to 

help minimize negative effects associated with trail use. These activities include maintenance and creation of 

water bars to move water off the trail tread, hardening areas which are sensitive through rock placement, and 

brushing in areas where “bootleg” trails are becoming evident. Through regular maintenance and proper trail 

construction techniques, refuge staff will ensure any potential negative effects are avoided or minimized 

Compatibility Determination – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-76 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

We anticipate that bicycle use could alter drainage features of roads and trails through erosion and compaction, 

potentially affecting water quality and hydrology in sections of the trail system where soils are more erosive. 

Tires may create trail incision causing increased water channeling and erosion during wet conditions. These 

problems would be minimized because routes designated for bicycle use are on existing logging and skid roads, 

and most have hardened surfaces (trails with embedded rocks) or already compacted soils. These routes are 

located predominately on upland soils to prevent impacts to fragile wetland soils. Because bicycle routes are 

permitted only on trails which are stable (typically all old logging road beds) and the trail maintenance is 

performed by the refuge staff and volunteers, adverse effects on water resources, will be minimized. 

Effects on Vegetation: Bicycle use can cause compaction, of presently uncompacted soils, particularly when 

soils are wet, which can degrade plant communities associated with fragile organic soils. Soil compaction can 

diminish the soil porosity, aeration, and nutrient availability. These directly affect plant growth and survival 

(Kuss 1986). Compaction can also limit the re-colonization of areas due to increased difficulty for root growth 

and penetration in the affected soils (Hammitt and Cole 1998). Kuss (1986) found plant species adapted to 

wet or moist habitats are the most sensitive, and increased moisture content reduces the ability of the soil to 

support recreational traffic. 

It is anticipated that bicycling will have some impacts on refuge plant communities growing on the designated 

travel routes by crushing the plants themselves. Designated routes for bicycle travel consist of former logging 

roads with hardened surfaces or are existing trails that have been used for many years. These routes 

are located predominately on upland soils to prevent impacts to fragile wetland soils and associated plant 

communities. Some rare plants have been documented in habitat adjacent to trails; however, rare plant species 

have not been found on the designated route surfaces themselves. Monitoring includes documenting off trail 

riding, which often creates “bootleg” trails. Often these trails develop when trail conditions deteriorate (muddy 

soil, puddles) or if a tree fall blocks the designated trail route. Impacts of off trail bike riding can be minimized 

through proper trail maintenance which keeps riders on designated trails and prevents vegetation impacts 

adjacent to trails. In the case of new trail construction, the refuge will follow the trail checklist to minimize 

impacts to refuge resources. A subsequent environmental assessment will evaluate the effects of proposed new 

trails on refuge resources. 

Exposed soil and an abundance of sunlight along roads and trails provide ideal conditions for the establishment 

of invasive plant species. Bicycle use may impact vegetation and create bare soil conditions, thus creating 

conducive conditions for invasive species growth. Invasions result from the use of foreign material to construct 

and maintain roads and trails, and from seed transport via visitors and vehicles traveling on roads and trails. 

Stout (1992) found that roads and trails created through emergent wetlands were being colonized by barnyard 

grass (Echinochloa crusgalli), which displaces native plants, and is a species on the West Virginia state list of 

invasive exotic plants. Designated routes do not cross any emergent wetlands. Instead, they mostly include old 

logging roads that previously have been planted with exotic cover species following logging operations.

Invasive plants, if allowed to establish and spread, can cause major damage to native plant assemblages and the 

wildlife they support. We will monitor for invasive species and control or eliminate them annually. Key among 

these invasive plants species are reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), multiflora rose (Rosa multifora), 

yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), and cattails. We will take proper care in cleaning and maintaining all 

refuge equipment to avoid introduction or transport of invasive plants through refuge- or volunteer-based trail 

maintenance programs. Based on current trail monitoring results, invasive species presence along trails is low. 

Therefore it is likely that the current levels of bicycle use and all other public uses permitted on these trails are 

not causing significant increases in invasive plants relative to the current vegetative community on designated 

routes. 

The refuge minimizes adverse effects on vegetation in a variety of ways. Refuge staff routinely monitors 

roads and trails for damage and remediates problem areas as needed. Trail maintenance is conducted to help 

minimize any negative effects associated with trail use. Staff and volunteers also monitor the refuge for the 

presence of invasive species with the intent of controlling or eliminating them. Because bicycle use is limited to 

an existing trail bed which is typically packed earth (from past logging road use), direct effects of vegetation 

impacts will be minimal. There will be minimal impacts to the vegetation growing on the trail itself, typically 

native and non-native grasses and forbs. Any impacts will occur in the maintained bicycle trail corridor. This 

corridor does not provide significant habitat for native plant communities on the refuge. If future evidence 

Compatibility Determination – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-77

of unacceptable adverse impacts appears, we will re-route, curtail, or close trails to this use as deemed 

appropriate. Additionally, the amount of bicycle use (as documented by trail inventories and observation of 

direct physical impacts) relative to other permitted activities will be considered when making changes to 

bicycle use on trails.

Effects on Soils: Bicycle wheels can cause physical impacts to soil surfaces. Cessford (1995) notes the shearing 

action of wheels creates damage to roads and trails, which increases when trail conditions are wet or when 

traveling up a steep slope. When traveling down slope, skidding with hard braking can result in loosening soil 

surfaces, which leads to rutting and erosion by channeling water down wheel ruts. If braking is not performed 

on downhill travel, the impact of tires on the slope will be much less damaging (Cessford 1995). 

The Mauch Chunk-derived soil in Canaan Valley is particularly vulnerable to mechanical erosion when 

vegetation has been removed (Rizzo 2002). This type of erosion may occur when bicycle wheels skid or spin over 

the soil surface. This can create wheel channels causing rapid water runoff that accelerates erosion down slope 

(Rizzo 2002). 

Trails designated for bicycle use were selected based on soil conditions that were listed as low risk for 

compaction and erosion as well as an in-field evaluation of existing conditions (Bell 2002, Rizzo 2002). Most 

of the designated trails are pre-existing roads that have been previously altered by vehicles and logging 

equipment, therefore soils are generally compacted and less susceptible to additional physical impact and 

mechanical erosion. Bicycle use on any new trails will follow the existing trail checklist. More specifically, any 

new bicycle use will occur on previously-disturbed areas such as logging roads and rail beds, thereby reducing 

or eliminating wetland disturbance.

Effects on Wildlife: Disturbances vary with the wildlife species involved and the type, level, frequency, 

duration and the time of year that human activities occur. The responses of wildlife to human activities 

include avoidance or departure from the site (Owen 1973, Burger 1981, Kaiser and Fritzell 1984, Korschen et 

al. 1985, Henson and Grant 1991, Kahl 1991, Klein 1993, Whittaker and Knight 1998), the use of sub-optimal 

habitat (Erwin 1980, Williams and Forbes 1980), altered behavior or habituation (Burger 1981, Korschen et al. 

1985, Morton et al. 1989, Ward and Stehn 1989, Havera et al. 1992, Klein 1993, Whittaker and Knight 1998), 

attraction (Whittaker and Knight 1998), and an increase in energy expenditure (Morton et al. 1989, Belanger 

and Bedard 1990). Mammals may become habituated to humans making them easier targets for hunters. 

Disturbance can cause shifts in habitat use, abandonment of habitat and increased energy demands on affected 

wildlife (Knight and Cole 1991).

The effects of roads and trails on plants and animals are complex and not limited to the trail width. Trail 

use can disturb areas outside the immediate trail corridor (Trails and Wildlife Task Force 1998, Miller et al. 

2001). Miller et al. (1998) describe a 75-meter zone of influence where bird abundance and nesting activities 

(including nest success) were found to increase as distance from a recreational trail increased in both grassland 

and forested habitats. Bird communities in this study were apparently affected by the presence of recreational 

roads and trails, where common species (e.g., American robins) were found near trails and rare species (e.g., 

grasshopper sparrows) were found farther from trails. Songbird nest failure was also greater near trails 

(Miller et al. 1998).

Several studies have examined the effects of recreationists on birds using shallow-water habitats adjacent 

to trails and roads through wildlife refuges and coastal habitats in the eastern United States (Burger 1981, 

Burger 1986, Klein 1993, Burger et al. 1995, Klein et al. 1995, Rodgers and Smith 1995, Rodgers and Smith 

1997, Burger and Gochfeld 1998). Overall, the existing research clearly demonstrates that disturbances from 

recreation activities have at least temporary effects on the behavior and movement of birds within a habitat or 

localized area (Burger 1981, Burger 1986, Klein 1993, Burger et al. 1995, Klein et al. 1995, Rodgers and Smith 

1997, Burger and Gochfeld 1998). The findings that were reported in these studies are summarized as follows in 

terms of visitor activity and avian response to disturbance.

Presence: Birds avoided places where people were present and when visitor activity was high (Burger 1981, 

Klein et al. 1995, Burger and Gochfeld 1998). Batten (1977) and Burger (1981) found that wading birds were 

extremely sensitive to disturbance in the northeastern United States. Klein (1993) found that, as the intensity 

of human disturbance increased, avoidance response by water birds increased. Conflicts arise when migratory 

Compatibility Determination – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-78 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

birds and humans are present in the same areas (Boyle and Samson 1985). McNeil et al. (1992) found that 

many waterfowl species avoid disturbance by feeding at night instead of during the day. Studying the effects 

of human visitation on water birds at the J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Klein (1989) found 

resident water birds to be less sensitive to disturbance than migrants were; she also found that sensitivity 

varied according to species and individuals within species. In general, she found that herons and cranes were 

quite tolerant of people but were disturbed as they took terrestrial prey; great blue herons, tricolored herons, 

great egrets, and little blue herons were disturbed to the point of flight more than other birds. Kushlan (1978) 

found that the need of these birds to move frequently while feeding might disrupt inter-specific and intraspecific relationships. Gutzwiller et al. (1994) found that singing behavior of some songbird species was altered 

by low levels of human intrusion. Some bird species habituate to repeated intrusion; frequently disturbed 

individuals of some species have been found to vocalize more aggressively, have higher body masses, or tend to 

remain in place longer (Cairns and McLaren 1980). 

Distance: Disturbance increased with decreased distance between visitors and birds (Burger 1986), though 

exact measurements were not reported.

Reproduction and nesting success: Flight in response to disturbance can lower nesting productivity and cause 

disease and death (Knight and Cole 1991). Miller et al. (1998) found bird abundance and nesting activities 

(including nest success) increased as distance from a recreational trail increased in both grassland and forested 

habitats. Bird communities in this study were apparently affected by the presence of recreational trails, where 

common species (i.e., American robins) were found near trails and more specialized species (i.e., grasshopper 

sparrows) were found farther from trails. Nest predation also was found to be greater near trails (Miller et al., 

1998). Disturbance may affect the reproductive fitness of males by hampering territory defense, male attraction 

and other reproductive functions of song (Arrese 1987). Disturbance, which leads to reduced singing activity, 

would make males rely more heavily on physical deterrents in defending territories, which are time- and 

energy-consuming (Ewald and Carpenter 1978).

Noise: Noise caused by visitors resulted in increased levels of disturbance (Burger 1986, Klein 1993, Burger 

and Gochfeld 1998), though noise was not correlated with visitor group size (Burger and Gochfeld 1998). 

Knight and Cole (1991) suggest recreational activities occurring simultaneously may have a combined negative 

impact on wildlife. Hammitt and Cole (1998) conclude that the frequent presence of humans in ‘wildland’ areas 

can dramatically change the normal behavior of wildlife mostly through ‘unintentional harassment.’ 

Seasonal sensitivities can compound the effect of disturbance on wildlife. Examples include regularly flushing 

birds during nesting or causing mammals to flee during winter months, thereby consuming large amounts of 

stored fat reserves. Hammitt and Cole (1998) note that females with young (such as white-tailed deer) are more 

likely to flee from a disturbance than those without young. Some uses, such as bird observation, are directly 

focused on viewing certain wildlife species and can cause more significant impacts during breeding season.

Wildlife associated with aquatic habitats may also be affected by bicycles on trails. Impacts may be indirectly 

caused by erosion and subsequent sedimentation of streams and vernal pools as a result of poorly designed 

trails and bicycle travel over bare soils and around drainages. Increased sediment loads can reduce aquatic 

vegetation and dissolved oxygen concentrations (Sadoway 1986). Sedimentation can directly kill aquatic 

invertebrates, affecting the success of amphibian larvae and adults (Sadoway 1986). Observations by refuge 

staff in 2002 document numerous occurrences of amphibian egg masses that failed after becoming coated in 

sediment from eroding trails and roads nearby. Bartgis and Berdine (1991) report that sedimentation was 

damaging habitat in Canaan Valley and could cause impacts to rare plants, impair water quality and possibly 

affect habitat of the southern water shrew (Sorex palustris punctulatus), a state species of concern. This was 

a direct result of vehicle use and road construction prior to the refuge’s acquisition of the property. Trail 

work conducted since 2002 has begun to address sedimentation and erosion issues on refuge trails. Because 

trails designated for bicycle use are upland areas or locations of existing (compacted) logging roads, the 

use of bicycles is not expected to significantly increase erosion or sedimentation problems. Through proper 

trail maintenance and construction, trail drainage will be improved to minimize the effects of erosion and 

sedimentation on wildlife.

Compatibility Determination – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-79

Short-term localized adverse impacts to fish populations also may result from soil erosion and sedimentation 

into refuge waterways associated with this activity. Long-term adverse impacts from increased trail miles 

and trail use might pose another concern to refuge fisheries. Trails that have stream and river crossings 

would likely degrade over time with increased use and contribute to downstream sedimentation and turbidity, 

which has been found to be a stressor to brook trout (Sweka and Hartman 2001) and redside dace (Holm and 

Crossman 1986) populations that are sensitive to habitat degradation. 

Two stream crossings have been hardened with rock pilings on stream banks to reduce erosive impacts of 

bicycle use on those banks. The refuge will monitor stream and river crossings closely and remediate any 

damaged areas to minimize adverse impacts associated with trail use. Through proper trail construction and 

maintenance, excessive sedimentation from existing or new trails will be minimized. The addition of bicycle use 

on existing and new refuge trails will not increase the monitoring requirements to ensure compatibility.

Wildlife disturbance by bicycles has been cited for trail closures on the Handley Wildlife Management Area in 

West Virginia (Dale 2002). Similar disturbances to resident and migratory wildlife species may also become 

a problem in the Canaan Valley if bicycle activity increases substantially. The refuge will monitor bicycle use 

and will curtail this use if it contributes to unacceptable wildlife disturbance. The refuge will also continue 

to prohibit trails in sensitive areas where wildlife concentrate, such as open water, riparian areas, and open 

grasslands. This will help reduce the disturbance effect on wildlife.

Anticipated impacts of bicycle use on wildlife include temporary disturbances to species using habitats on the 

trail or directly adjacent to the trail. Bicycle use typically only occurs from spring through fall and usually 

when the ground is dry. Additionally, with 23 miles of existing trail open for bicycle use, this activity will be 

dispersed. Therefore disturbances will be limited in time (season) and space (miles of trail), thus reducing 

the overall impact. Use of some roads and trails may cause direct impacts such as mortality (e.g., crushing 

amphibians foraging on grassy roads and trails) to nest abandonment of bird species nesting on trails. Longterm impacts may include certain wildlife species avoiding trail corridors as a result of this use over time. 

Routes found compatible for bicycle use are located primarily in continuous tracts of northern hardwood 

forest on the refuge, where forest cover may help reduce disturbance. More sensitive wildlife habitat such as 

riparian, wetland, and grassland areas are avoided or minimized to the maximum extent possible. The refuge 

will minimize adverse impacts by using its trail/route checklist to determine whether the existing or new trail 

meets established criteria. 

West Virginia northern flying squirrels have been documented on refuge property near the end of FR 80. This 

species has recently been removed from the endangered species list. The recovery plan (USFWS 2001) notes 

that habitat modification may create a competitive advantage for the southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys 

volans), although the extent to which a logging road or trail would create conditions conducive for this are 

unknown. Roads can adversely affect northern flying squirrel movement by fragmenting habitat, although not 

all roads create absolute barriers. West Virginia northern flying squirrel are capable of gliding up to 200 ft, 

with the majority of the glides ranging from 16 to 82 ft (Scheibe et al. 2007, p. 857; Vernes 2001, pp. 1028–1029). 

West Virginia northern flying squirrel are known to have crossed logging roads, gravel roads, and ski slopes 

(Ford et al. 2007, p. 8; Menzel et al. 2006a, p. 207; Terry 2004, pp. 18–19). Menzel et al. (2004, p. 358) noted that 

many northern flying squirrel day dens were located along or near abandoned skidder trails. Some research 

has found northern flying squirrels occupying den sites near logging roads, skid trails, and on hiking trails 

(Ford 2002). Routes designated for bicycle use are pre-existing roads and trails, some of which have been in 

existence for many years. No new habitat clearing is planned in this area; however, some vegetation clearing 

may be required to maintain the trail corridor. We will periodically evaluate bicycle use to determine any 

effects it may have on the northern flying squirrel. 

The refuge also recognizes that large group sizes may amplify negative effects to wildlife; therefore, groups 

larger than 10 are required to notify the refuge prior to visiting to determine if a special use permit will be 

needed. Limiting group size for bicycles is consistent with West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Wildlife 

Management Area regulations (limit of 10 bicycles with permit) and therefore will aid in consistency between 

refuge and state managed lands. Requiring large groups to contact the refuge prior to visiting will also enable 

the refuge to understand which trails are preferred by large groups, and to monitor any potential excessive 

wildlife disturbance created by large groups. Having the ability to monitor these kinds of disturbances will 

enable the refuge to mitigate impacts associated with large groups, Examples of mitigation may include 

directing large groups to less sensitive habitats during breeding seasons or assigning refuge staff to lead or 

Compatibility Determination – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-80 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

meet with the group while on refuge lands. Limiting group size will also increase the quality of the experience 

and decrease the potential of conflicting with other users’ experience. 

We will take all appropriate measures to avoid or minimize any negative effects. We will evaluate the roads 

and trails periodically to assess whether they meet established suitability criteria and to prevent habitat 

degradation. If there is evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts on wildlife, we will reroute, curtail, or 

close trails to this use as deemed appropriate. We will post and enforce refuge regulations, and establish, 

post, and enforce closed areas as needed. Based on the information provided above, this use is not anticipated 

to significantly increase wildlife habitat fragmentation or cause significant impacts on wildlife through 

disturbance. 

Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species: There are two federally listed species known to occur on 

the refuge, and one species that has recently been de-listed. Cheat Mountain salamanders (Plethodon nettingi), 

listed as threatened, have been documented near the upper section of Forest Road (FR) 80, and near the 

cross-country ski trails in that area. Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis), listed as endangered, are known to use 

the refuge’s forested areas for summer foraging and may have a summer maternity colony on refuge lands as 

well. The West Virginia northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) has been documented on refuge 

property near the end of FR 80. This species has recently been removed from the endangered species list. 

The refuge requested Section 7 informal consultation with the Service’s West Virginia Field Office under the 

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) on all the actions in alternative B of this draft CCP/Environmental 

Assessment (EA), including bicycling, that could potentially impact listed species. This process resulted in a 

finding that the proposed actions are not likely to adversely affect the listed species or their associated habitats 

on the refuge. The full Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation form can be found in appendix I of this 

draft CCP/EA.

Cheat Mountain salamander – This species is sensitive to any habitat changes that remove a forest canopy or 

reduce soil moisture and relative humidity. Habitat used by the Cheat Mountain salamander can be impacted 

through modifications and alterations to the forest canopy which can include road development, ski slope 

development, timber harvesting, or any other activity which significantly increases the amount of sunlight 

reaching the forest floor. Because Cheat Mountain salamanders have very specific ranges of tolerance for 

temperature and relative humidity, any activity which increases soil temperature and lowers relative humidity 

near the ground surface can have detrimental effects on salamander populations (USFWS 1991). According to 

the Service (USFWS 1991), trails that receive heavy use resulting in bare trail treads could limit movements of 

Cheat Mountain salamanders and interfere with reproduction.

Since refuge acquisition of the Kelly-Elkins and Graham tracts, surveys for Cheat Mountain salamanders have 

documented their presence on the uphill and downhill sides of Powderline and Three-Mile ski trails. These, as 

well as all cross-country ski trails on the Kelly-Elkins Tract are closed to public use outside the ski season. To 

protect this sensitive species, bicycling is prohibited on the ski trails and is restricted to FR 80, an established 

forest road. 

Indiana Bat – Indiana bats were documented on the refuge for the first time through acoustical monitoring 

conducted by the U.S. Forest Service in 2003 (Ford 2003). Indiana bats were found foraging at two locations 

in the south end of the refuge. Refuge staff began conducting acoustical surveys in 2005. These surveys have 

documented three likely Indiana bat observations in the same location as the 2003 survey during 2005, 2007, 

and 2008. Additionally, acoustical surveys documented one new location for the species during 2007. Indiana 

bat calls have been documented from the refuge in the months of May, July, August, and September. However, 

since bicycling has been occurring for many years, is restricted to day time hours, and must comply with the 

stipulations of this document, any potential negative effects are expected to be minimal. We will periodically 

evaluate this activity to determine any effects it may have. If evidence of unacceptable adverse effects appears, 

the location(s) of bicycle use will be curtailed or discontinued as needed. 

As determined in the Section 7 informal consultation (appendix I), bicycle use is not likely to adversely 

affect threatened or endangered species on the refuge. The use will occur primarily on existing roads and 

trails, none of which intersect occupied, threatened or endangered species habitat. The nearest known Cheat 

Mountain salamander habitat to FR 80 is 754 feet from the road (USFWS 2008), far more than the 300-foot 

buffer zone recommended in the recovery plan for this species (USFWS 1991). Additional trail openings or 

Compatibility Determination – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-81

new trails will be evaluated for suitability using established criteria (trail check list) before being opened to 

bicycling. Sensitive habitats such as those occupied by threatened or endangered species will be avoided. 

Any effects of bicycling on designated roads and trails are not considered, separately or cumulatively, to 

constitute significant short-term or long-term impacts. Assessment of potential future impacts was based on 

available information and current and anticipated level and pattern of use collected from a variety of annual 

wildlife and plant surveys conducted by refuge staff as well as informal field observations. The current use is 

viewed as an effective and justifiable method of travel that allows the public to discover, experience, and enjoy 

priority public uses on the refuge. Continued monitoring of the effects of bicycling and associated human 

activities is necessary to better understand the influence of the use on refuge habitats, plant and wildlife 

communities, and visitors. Monitoring identifies any actions needed to respond to new information (adaptive 

management) and correct problems that may arise in the future. 

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

This compatibility determination will be made available for public review and comment for 45 days as an 

appendix to the draft CCP/EA for Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. 

DETERMINATION

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY 

The refuge has developed a list of criteria for determining whether any given route would be appropriate 

for public uses, including bicycle use. These criteria would apply to current and future trails. Criteria are as 

follows:

Checklist for Existing Routes to Be Eligible for Compatibility Consideration 

(Routes must meet all criteria)

1. Route provides an opportunity to view a variety of habitats and wildlife.

2. Route is safe for the access proposed at current use levels.

3. Route requires minimal annual maintenance (i.e, waterbars, stepping stones, etc.) to ensure safe access and to 

prevent further habitat degradation.

4. Route has a low potential for fragmenting habitat or disturbing wildlife populations.

5. Based on existing soils information, less than 50% of the route’s length occupies soil types rated as high or 

very high for compaction and/or erosiveness. The route is not rated as severely limited for hiking trails based 

on the Tucker County Soil Survey.

6. Any route crossing of sensitive soils occupies the shortest possible distance. Organic soil crossings are 

minimized or eliminated.

7. Continued use of the existing route is not likely to cause further wetland alteration or degradation. There is 

low risk that hydrology, soil stability, sensitive plant communities, riparian zones, and wildlife habitats would 

be adversely affected. 

8. Route predominately occupies modifi ed substrate (graveled, compacted, or fi lled) like logging roads and rail 

grades. 

9. Route is not incised greater than 1 foot deep over 10% of its total length.

Compatibility Determination – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-82 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Additional Stipulations for Bicycle Use:

— Refuge regulations will be posted and enforced. Closed areas will be established as needed, posted, and 

enforced. Signs necessary for visitor information, safety, and traffic control will be kept up to date. 

— The known presence of a threatened or endangered species will preclude the use of an area until the refuge 

manager determines otherwise. 

— Bicycling is only compatible on designated roads and trails.

— Bicycling is restricted to refuge open hours: 1 hour before sunrise until 1 hour after sunset. 

— Group size is encouraged to be no more than 10 persons to promote public safety, accommodate other 

users, and reduce wildlife disturbance. Groups larger than 10 persons must contact the refuge office prior 

to visiting the trail system to determine if a special use permit is needed. Visitors traveling only on roads 

shared with vehicles are not required to contact the refuge office or obtain a special use permit.

— All routes designated for public access are annually inspected for maintenance needs. Prompt action is taken 

to correct any conditions that risk public safety. Roads and trails are maintained at a level that reasonably 

accounts for safe travel. Roads and trails are not cleared in winter.

— Routes designated for public access are monitored periodically to determine if they continue to meet the 

compatibility criteria established by the refuge. Should monitoring and evaluation of the use indicate that 

the compatibility criteria are or will be exceeded, appropriate action will be taken to ensure continued 

compatibility, including modifying or discontinuing the use. 

— Routine law enforcement patrols are conducted throughout the year. The patrols promote education and 

compliance with refuge regulations, monitor public use patterns and public safety, and document visitor 

interaction. 

— Potential conflicts with other public uses such as hunting, interpretation, etc. will be minimized by using 

trailhead signs and other media to inform the visitors about current public use activities as well as which 

activities are authorized in specific locations throughout the refuge. 

JUSTIFICATION

Bicycling has occurred on the refuge since its establishment. The use of bicycles at Canaan Valley refuge to 

facilitate priority public uses enhances visitors’ ability to view the wide diversity of refuge habitats and can 

make access easier as many trails exceed four miles round trip. Trails at Canaan Valley refuge are longer than 

trails at many other refuges. By providing opportunities for bicycling, the refuge opens itself to a whole new 

group of users that might not otherwise benefit from the outreach and educational opportunities available at 

the refuge. 

Refuge staff has implemented several restrictions to minimize the anticipated impacts of bicycling on fish, 

wildlife, and habitats. Bicycling is only authorized on designated roads and trails. Routes designated for bicycle 

use are existing logging and skid roads, and most have hardened surfaces or already compacted soils which 

directly limit the physical impact of this activity to soils, hydrology, and vegetation. In addition, these routes 

are located predominately on upland soils to prevent impacts to fragile wetland soils. Trail conditions have 

improved since refuge acquisition of the Main Tract in 2002 due to restoration and maintenance actions. 

Additionally, vehicles were prohibited from accessing these areas after the refuge acquired the property which 

greatly reduced impacts. The use of bicycles on existing designated public use trails will not significantly 

increase resource impacts over and above the other, existing public uses. Because of the restrictions and 

management of the trail system, the impact to soils and possible sedimentation of wetland resources will 

be minimized. Therefore these anticipated impacts will not affect the refuge’s ability to fulfill the purposes 

of wetland conservation established through the Emergency Wetland Resources Act (1986). Because tread 

width is narrow and trails are on established logging roads, impacts to plants and potential invasive species 

Compatibility Determination – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-83

colonization will be minor and therefore not affect the refuge’s ability to conserve plant resources as described 

in the mission of the Refuge System and to protect the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and its resources, 

a founding purpose for designation of the refuge in the 1979 EIS.

Bicycling routes occur primarily in forested habitats to help reduce disturbance to wildlife. Disturbance 

along bicycling corridors will impact only a fraction of the habitat available for wildlife on the refuge, and this 

disturbance will occur within the most abundant habitat type on the refuge. By limiting use to designated trails 

on a small percentage of the refuge and within the most common habitat type, disturbance will be limited and 

manageable. 

For this reason disturbance effects will not prevent the refuge from fulfilling the purposes of the Fish and 

Wildlife Act (1956) or the mission of the Refuge System for conserving, managing, restoring, and protecting 

wildlife resources. This use will not affect the ability to fulfill its purpose under the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act to serve as a sanctuary or management area for migratory birds as this use will not occur on 

the tracts that were acquired under that act.

We will post and enforce refuge regulations, and establish, post, and enforce closed areas as needed. We also 

evaluate the roads and trails periodically to assess whether they meet established suitability criteria and to 

prevent degradation. If evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts appears, we will repair the trail through 

scheduled maintenance programs, or re-route, curtail, or close trails to bicycling as deemed appropriate.

Conflicts between bicycle riders and other users are localized and limited in time and space. Many refuge trails 

are closed to bicycle access to prevent user conflicts and to reduce the overall impact on the priority public 

uses. Given the size of the refuge and miles of trail open for the various forms of public access, conflicts are 

expected to be minor.

Because of the criteria established for permitting this activity, bicycling is considered to be an acceptable 

and manageable method for facilitating priority public uses at Canaan Valley refuge. Bicycling would provide 

access to more remote areas of the refuge where wetland plant communities and other habitats may be viewed 

and interpreted. For the reasons discussed above, this access will not affect the refuge’s ability to conserve 

wetlands or protect, manage, and restore the wildlife and plant resources, as mandated through two of the 

refuge’s establishing purposes, namely the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986) and the Fish and 

Wildlife Act (1956), or the mission of the Refuge System. Since public use trails do not occur on lands acquired 

under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, bicycling will not affect the refuge’s ability to protect and manage 

migratory birds on those tracts. We therefore conclude bicycling will not materially interfere with or detract 

from the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Refuge Manager 

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

 (Signature) (Date)

MANDATORY 10 YEAR RE-EVALUATION DATE

 

 

 (Date)

Compatibility Determination – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-84 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

LITERATURE CITED

Arrese, P. 1987. Age, intrusion pressure and defense against floaters by territorial male Song

 Sparrows. Animal Behavior 35:773-784.

Bartgis, R., and A. Berdine. 1991. A preliminary assessment of biological resources in the Canaan Valley of 

 West Virginia. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 

Batten, L. A. 1977. Sailing on reservoirs and its effects on water birds. Biological Conservation 11:49-58.

Belanger, L., and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. Journal 

 of Wildlife Management 54:36.

Bell, S. 2002. National Resource Conservation Service. Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 4pp.

Boyle, S. A., and F. B. Samson. 1985. Effects of non-consumptive recreation on wildlife: A review. Wildlife 

 Society Bulletin 13:110.

Burger, J. 1981. Effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 21:231-241.

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United States. 

 Biological Conservation 13:123–130.

Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1998. Effects of eco-tourists on bird behavior at Loxahatchee National Wildlife 

 Refuge, Florida. Environmental Conservation 25:13–21.

Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, and L. J. Niles. 1995. Ecotourism and birds in coastal New Jersey: Contrasting 

 responses of birds, tourists, and managers. Environmental Conservation 22:56-65.

Cessford, G. 1995. Off-road impacts of mountain bikes: A review and discussion. Department of Conservation 

 Publication, Wellington, New Zealand. 21pp.

Dale, T. 2002. Personal Communication with Tom Dale, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Handley 

 Wildlife Management Area, District 3, Pocahontas County, West Virginia. May 2, 2002.

Erwin, R. M. 1980. Breeding habitat by colonially nesting water birds in 2 Mid-Atlantic U.S. regions under 

 different regimes of human disturbance. Biological Conservation. 18:39-51.

Ewald P. W., and F. L. Carpenter. 1978. Territorial responses to energy manipulations in the Anna 

 hummingbird. Oecologia 31: 277-292.

Ford, M. 2002. Personal Communication with Mark Ford, U.S. Forest Service, Parsons, WV. May 3, 2002.

Ford, M. 2003. Memorandum to Canaan Valley NWR - Acoustic bat monitoring. U.S. Department of 

 Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Parsons, WV. 1pp.

Ford, W.M., K.L. Mertz, J.M. Menzel, and K.K. Sturm. 2007 (in press). Winter home range and habitat use of 

 the Virginia northern flying squirrel ( Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus ). Research Paper NRS-4 

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown, PA. 29 pp.

Gutzwiller, K. J., S. K. Riffell, and S. H. Anderson. 1995. Repeated human intrusion and the potential for nest 

 predation by gray jays. Journal of Wildlife Management 66(2): 372-380.

Hammitt, W. E., and D. N. Cole. 1998. Wildlife Recreation: Ecology and Management (2nd edition). New York: 

 John Wiley & Sons. 361p.

Compatibility Determination – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-85

Havera, S. P., L. R. Boens, M. M. Georgi, and R. T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk 

 Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298.

Henson, P. T., and A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding behavior. 

 Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:248-257.

Holm, E., and E. J. Crossman. 1986. A report on a 1985 attempt to resurvey areas within the Ontario 

 distribution of Clinostomus elongatus, the redside dace and to summarize previous records. 

 Unpublished report on file Fisheries Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Royal 

 Ontario Museum. 11 pages, 9 tables, 13 figs.

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. Wildlife 

 Society Bulletin 19:242-248.

Kaiser, M. S., and Fritzell, E. K. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. Journal 

 of Wildlife Management 48: 561-567.

Klein, M. L. 1989. Effects of high levels of Human Visitation on Foraging Waterbirds at J.N. “Ding” Darling 

 NWR, Sanibel, Florida. Final Report to USFWS. 103pp.

Klein, M. L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:31–39.

Klein, M. L., S. R. Humphrey, and H. F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution of waterbirds in 

 a wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology 9: 1454–1465.

Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. Transactions of 

 the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference pp. 238-247.

Korschen, C. E., L. S. George, and W. L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a migrational 

 staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:290-296.

Kushlan, J. A. 1978. Feeding ecology of wading birds. Pages 249-297 in A. Sprunt IV, J.C. Ogden, and S. 

 Winckler, eds. Wading Birds. National Audubon Society, New York, NY.

Kuss, F. R. 1986. A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation impacts. Environmental 

 Management, 10:638-650.

McNeil, R., P. Drapeau, and J. D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurrence and adaptive significance of nocturnal 

 habitats in waterfowl. Biological Reviews 67: 381-419.

Menzel, M.A., W.M. Ford, J.W. Edwards, and T.M. Terry. 2006a. Homerange and habitat use of the endangered 

 Virginia northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus in the Central Appalachian Mountains. 

 Oryx 40:204-210. Available on-line at www.treesearch.fs.fed.us

Menzel, J.M., W.M. Ford, J.W. Edwards and L.J. Ceperley. 2006b. A habitat model for the Virginia northern 

 flying squirrel ( Glacuomys sabrinus fuscus ) in the central Appalachian Mountains. U.S. Department 

 of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station Research Paper NE-729. 10 pp. 

 Available on-line at www.treesearch.fs.fed.us

Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

 communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169.

Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society 

 Bulletin 29(1): 124-132. 

Compatibility Determination – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-86 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Morton, J. M., A. C. Fowler, and R. L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black 

 ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:401-410 (See also corrigendum in Journal 

 of Wildlife Management 54:683).

Owen, M. 1973. The management of grassland areas for wintering geese. Wildfowl. 24:123-130.

Pauley, T. 1991. Cheat Mountain Salamander (Plethodon nettingi) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Newton Corner, MA 

Rizzo, A. 2002. Personal Communications with Al Rizzo, Soil Scientist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 

 17-19, 2002.

Rodgers, J. A., and H. T. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human 

 disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9:89–99.

Rodgers, J. A., and H. T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from 

 human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:139–145.

Sadoway, K. L. 1986. Effects of intensive forest management on amphibians and reptiles of Vancouver Island: 

 problem analysis. Research, B. C. Ministries of Environment and Forests. IWIFR-23. Victoria, B. C.

Scheibe, J.S., K.E. Paskins, S. Ferdous, and D. Birdsill. 2007. Kinematics and functional morphology of 

 leaping, landing, and branch use in Glaucomys sabrinus . Journal of Mammalogy 88:850-861.

Stout, B. M. 1992. Impact of ORV use on vegetative communities of northern Canaan Valley, West Virginia. 

 Wheeling, West Virginia, Wheeling Jesuit College: 24 pp.

Sweka, J. A., and K. J. Hartman. 2001. Effects of turbidity on prey consumption and growth in brook trout 

 and implications for bioenergetics modeling. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 

 386-393. 

Terry, T.M. 2004. Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus habitat and nest box use in West Virginia with management 

 recommendations for Kumbrabow State Forest. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, West Virginia University, 

 Morgantown, WV. 83 pp. Available on-line at www.wvu.edu/~thesis

Trails and Wildlife Task Force. 1998. Planning trails with wildlife in mind: A handbook for trail planners. 

 Colorado State Parks, Denver, CO. 51pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Acquisition of lands 

 for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of the Interior - U.S. Fish 

 and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Cheat Mountain Salamander (Plethodon nettingi) recovery 

 plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final Environmental Assessment - Acquisition of lands for the Canaan 

 Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 50 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Appalachian northern flying squirrel recovery plan. West 

 Virginia Field Office, Elkins, WV.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). July 19, 2008. Survey memo, GIS data and associated information 

 related to Cheat Mountain salamander surveys at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. 

Compatibility Determination – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-87

Vernes, K. 2001. Gliding performance of the northern flying squirrel, Glaucomys sabrinus , in mature mixed 

 forest of Eastern Canada. Journal of Mammology 82(4):1026–1033.

Ward, D. H., and R. A. Stehn. 1989. Response of brant and other geese to aircraft disturbance at Izembek 

 Lagoon, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fish and Wildlife Research Center. Final 

 report to the Minerals Management Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 193 pp.

Whittaker, D., and R. L. Knight. 1998. Understanding wildlife responses to humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

 26:312–317. 

Williams, G. J., and E. Forbes. 1980. The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied brant geese and 

 widgeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl 31:151-157.

Zeedyke, B. 2002. Summary Report of Road Related Wetlands Impacts of the Canaan Valley NWR, Contract 

 Hydrologist: 5 pp.

Compatibility Determination – Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-89

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE

Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses

REFUGE NAME

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY 

The establishment of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was first approved in an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) released on May 30, 1979. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

decided to await the outcome of litigation surrounding a proposed storage hydroelectric facility before pursuing 

any further action. The approval of the refuge was affirmed by the Service in a 1994 Final Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact on July 11, 1994, which confirmed the adequacy of the 

previously-approved 1979 EIS. The refuge was officially established when the first tract of land was acquired 

on August 11, 1994. The Service has acquired lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) 

under the following authorities:

1. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f (a)(4)]

2. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901b]

3. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 [16 U.S.C. 715d]

REFUGE PURPOSES 

The refuge was established to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and the continued availability 

of its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources to the citizens of West Virginia and the United States (USFWS 

1979, 1994). Additional refuge purposes as derived from the legislative authorities are as follows:

(1) “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)); 

(2) “... for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide 

and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions.” 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986;16 U.S.C. 3901(b)); and,

(3) “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory 

Bird Conservation of Act; 16 U.S.C. 715d).

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is “to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans.” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997).

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use?

The uses are cross-country skiing and snowshoeing on 32 miles of designated trails on the refuge. While 

these uses are not priority public uses, they facilitate visitor participation in priority public uses (e.g., wildlife 

observation and photography). 

Compatibility Determination – Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-90 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

An additional 10 miles of trails on the refuge are managed for commercial cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing. There is a separate compatibility determination for commercial cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing on the refuge.

(b) Where will these uses be conducted? 

These uses will be allowed on the nearly 32 miles of existing designated roads and trails (see Map). These 

uses may also be allowed on any additional trails constructed or opened to the public through this draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)/Environmental Assessment (EA) or other appropriate regulatory 

process. See map B-2 for locations of public cross-country ski and snowshoeing trails. 

(c) When will the uses be conducted? 

These uses occur in the winter when there is sufficient snow to allow the activities and when the refuge is open 

to the public. Most cross-country skiing and snowshoeing occur mid-November through mid-March. Currently 

the refuge is open daily from one-hour before sunrise until one-hour after sunset. 

(d) How will the uses be conducted? 

Visitors on cross-country skis and snowshoes depart from refuge roads or parking areas and are authorized to 

use designated roads and trails. Refuge staff does not plow roads or groom trails in the winter, so access may 

be limited. 

Information kiosks identify the roads and trails open for travel and explain permitted public uses. Refuge 

trails and roads currently open to skiing and snowshoeing are described in the trail brochure. As additional 

trail connections are made, refuge brochures and kiosks will be updated to show all designated trails. Parking 

lots and kiosks have been constructed at the trailheads of refuge trails to help orient visitors. 

(e) Why are these uses being proposed? 

While skiing and snowshoeing are not priority public uses, they provide opportunities for visitors to observe 

and learn about the Refuge System, Canaan Valley refuge, and wildlife and habitats firsthand. Often 

visitors skiing and snowshoeing on the refuge engage in priority public uses such as wildlife observation and 

photography. Although much of the bird life is gone for the season and many mammal species are dormant 

or active only at night, this activity does help provide opportunities for wildlife observation. Winter species 

such as chickadees, nuthatches and ravens are commonly observed. Mammal tracks are used to interpret the 

area’s wildlife populations during the winter months. This exposure may lead to a better understanding of 

and interest in natural ecosystems, the importance of national wildlife refuges, and the role of the Service in 

protecting and restoring natural resources. 

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

The resources necessary to provide and administer road and trail use, at the current use level, are available 

within current and anticipated refuge budgets. Staff time associated with administration of this use is related 

to assessing the need for road and trail maintenance and repair, maintaining kiosks, gates, maintaining traffic 

counters and recording collected data, sign-posting roads and trails, informing the public about new refuge 

uses, conducting visitor use surveys, analyzing visitor use patterns, monitoring the effects of public uses on 

refuge resources and visitors, and providing information to the public about the use. These activities would 

be conducted in conjunction with the activities outlined in the “Wildlife Observation and Photography,” and 

“Environmental Education and Interpretation” compatibility determinations; therefore managing for crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing will not require additional staffing or resources. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE 

In general, negative effects on habitat and wildlife associated with these activities are considered minimal. 

Most wildlife species are less active during winter months, sensitive migratory birds have largely left the 

refuge, and it is not breeding season for any of the wildlife that may be present. The refuge does not groom or 

maintain trails in the winter. Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing are limited to winter and require sufficient 

snow cover to allow access. Surface water and soil may be frozen for at least a portion of this time, most 

vegetation is dormant, and sensitive habitat will largely be protected by a surface layer of snow. In addition, 

skis and snowshoes are designed to distribute weight, decreasing potential for eroding soils near waterways. 

Compatibility Determination – Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-91

Skiing and snowshoeing are limited to established roads and trails, and no recreational snowmobiles are 

allowed. Following are more specific descriptions of potential impacts associated with cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing. 

Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality: Visitor use has the potential to contaminate the Blackwater River 

and its tributaries through soil sedimentation into streams caused by skiing and snowshoeing. There may also 

be runoff of petroleum products from parking lots. 

There may be additional impacts to water resources where new trails cross the refuge’s rivers, streams, 

and tributaries increasing the potential short-term and long-term downstream erosion and sedimentation. 

Additional visitor use also increases the potential for contaminating rivers, streams, and open water through 

the runoff of petroleum products from parking lots. However, many refuge roads and parking lots are not 

plowed in the winter time, thus reducing impacts from parked cars.

The refuge minimizes adverse effects on water resources in a variety of ways. Refuge staff routinely monitors 

roads and trails for damage and remediates problem areas as needed. The refuge also conducts public outreach 

efforts to notify visitors of proper precautions, including carrying out all trash. This helps minimize risks 

associated with visitor use on the refuge. Visitors are also encouraged to limit group size to less than 10 people, 

and groups of more than 10 are required to check in at the refuge office. Because of these efforts, combined 

with the seasonal limitations, trail restrictions, and stipulations listed in this document, impacts to water 

resources are expected to be minimal.

Effects on Vegetation: Short-term effects consist of the deterioration of plant material, whereas long-term 

effects of trampling include direct and indirect effects on vegetation and soils like diminishing soil porosity, 

aeration, and nutrient availability through soil compaction (Kuss 1986, Roovers et al. 2004). Compaction of soils 

thus limits the ability of plants, particularly rare and sensitive species, to revegetate affected areas (Hammitt 

and Cole 1998). Kuss (1986) found, plant species adapted to wet or moist habitats are the most sensitive and 

increased moisture content reduces the ability of the soil to support recreational traffic. 

Overall effects on vegetation are expected to be minimal. As mentioned previously, skiing and snowshoeing are 

limited to winter and require sufficient snow cover to allow access. Vegetation is largely dormant during the 

winter and will largely be protected by a surface layer of snow. In addition, skis and snowshoes are designed 

to distribute weight, decreasing potential for compacting or eroding soils and trampling vegetation. Skiing 

and snowshoeing are limited to designated roads and trails, and no recreational snowmobiling is allowed. 

Designated roads and trails do not have any known occurrences of rare plant species on their surface that 

would be impacted by these uses. Some rare plants have been documented in habitat adjacent to trails. Users 

leaving designated trails could adversely affect adjacent vegetation; however, because of the time of year and 

low numbers of visitors expected to leave the trails, negative effects are expected to minimal. 

Effects on Soils: Soils can be compacted and eroded as a result of continued use of roads and trails. The 

Mauch Chunk-derived soil in Canaan Valley is particularly vulnerable to mechanical erosion when the 

vegetation has been removed (Rizzo 2002). If compacted, Mauch Chunk soils can facilitate rapid water runoff 

that accelerates erosion down slope (Rizzo 2002). 

Overall effects on soils are expected to be minimal. Skiing and snowshoeing are limited to winter and require 

sufficient snow cover to allow access. The soil surface will likely be frozen for some of the season, making 

it much less vulnerable to compaction or erosion. When these activities are occurring, soils also will largely 

be protected by a surface layer of snow. In addition, skis and snow shoes are designed to distribute weight, 

decreasing potential for compacting or eroding soils. Over the long-term, the risk of erosion and sedimentation 

problems that might affect soils in these habitats would increase with increased visitor use and trail use. 

However, given the time of year, locations, and methods used, increased levels of skiing and snowshoeing are 

not expected to significantly affect soils on the refuge. 

Effects on Wildlife: Short-term and long-term adverse impacts would be expected for wildlife populations 

in relation to increasing trail miles and visitor use. Disturbances will vary by wildlife species involved and the 

type, level, frequency, duration and the time of year activities occur. Beale and Monaghan (2004) found that 

Compatibility Determination – Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-92 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

adverse effects to wildlife increase as number of users increase. The study found that an animal’s response to 

one visitor walking down a trail is entirely different than its response to a group of users walking down a trail. 

Long-term adverse impacts from increased trail miles and trail use might pose a concern to refuge fisheries. 

Trails that have stream and river crossings would likely degrade over time with increased use and contribute 

to downstream sedimentation and turbidity, which has been found to be a stressor to brook trout (Sweka 

and Hartman 2001) and redside dace (Holm and Crossman 1986) populations that are sensitive to habitat 

degradation. However, most stream and river crossings occur on bridges, which helps to minimize impacts 

to habitats. The refuge will monitor stream and river crossings closely and remediate any damaged areas to 

minimize adverse impacts associated with trail use. During winter months when the ground is frozen, erosive 

potential of soils are reduced and impacts of cross-country skiing snowshoeing on erosion and sedimentation of 

aquatic habitats would be minimal. 

The use of trails in the winter for cross-country skiing and snowshoeing have similar wildlife disturbance 

effects as those which occur through pedestrian travel on these trails during the other seasons. One of the 

primary differences is that many migratory birds are not present and most resident species are not breeding 

or raising young during the time of year when cross-country skiing and snowshoeing occur. Additionally, many 

mammal species are less active during winter months. The most commonly-observed wildlife in the winter 

is chickadees, nuthatches and ravens. Winter conditions cause increased stress through extreme weather 

conditions and food availability (Hammit and Cole 1998). Both bird and mammal species which are present and 

active this time of year can be even more negatively affected from the same level of disturbance because of the 

added environmental stressors of severe weather and food shortages. 

We will take all necessary measures to mitigate any negative effects on wildlife associated with skiing and 

snowshoeing. We will evaluate roads, trails, and activities periodically to assess potential negative effects. If 

evidence of unacceptable adverse effects is observed, we will curtail or discontinue activities as needed. We will 

post and enforce refuge regulations, and establish, post, and enforce closed areas as needed. However, negative 

effects on wildlife are expected to be minimal. As discussed previously, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing 

are limited to winter months and require sufficient snow levels to allow access. Additionally, many refuge 

trails become difficult to access during winter conditions as access to main trail heads (A-frame Road and Old 

Timberline Road) are not maintained. This greatly reduces the numbers of users accessing refuge trails for 

these uses and thereby minimizes impacts. Requirements for skiers to remain on designated trails also reduce 

the impact of recreational activities on wildlife (Miller et al 2001). 

West Virginia northern flying squirrels have been documented on refuge property near the end of Forest Road 

(FR) 80. This species has recently been removed from the endangered species list. The recovery plan (USFWS 

2001) notes that habitat modification may create a competitive advantage for the southern flying squirrel 

(Glaucomys volans), although the extent to which a logging road or trail would create conditions conducive 

for this are unknown. Some research has found northern flying squirrels occupying den sites near logging 

roads, skid trails, and hiking trails (Ford 2002). Routes designated for these uses are pre-existing roads and 

trails, some of which have been in existence for many years. No new habitat clearing is planned in this area; 

however, some vegetation clearing may be required within the trail corridor. As mentioned previously, we 

will periodically evaluate these activities to determine any effects they may have. If evidence of unacceptable 

adverse effects appears, the location(s) of activities will be curtailed or discontinued as needed. 

The refuge also recognizes that large group sizes may amplify negative effects to wildlife. Therefore, groups 

larger than 10 are required to notify the refuge prior to visiting to determine if a special use permit will be 

needed. Requiring large groups to contact the refuge prior to visiting will enable the refuge to understand 

which trails are preferred by large groups, and to monitor any potential excessive wildlife disturbance created 

by large groups. Having the ability to monitor these kinds of disturbances will enable the refuge to mitigate 

impacts associated with large groups, Examples of mitigation may include directing large groups to less 

sensitive habitats during breeding seasons or assigning refuge staff to lead or meet with the group while on 

refuge lands. Limiting group size will also increase the quality of the experience and decrease the potential of 

conflicting with other users’ experience. 

Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species: There are two federally listed species known to occur on 

the refuge, and one species that has recently been de-listed. Cheat Mountain salamanders (Plethodon nettingi), 

listed as threatened, have been documented near the upper section of FR 80, and near the cross-country ski 

Compatibility Determination – Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-93

trails in that area. Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis), listed as endangered, is known to use the refuge’s forested 

areas for summer foraging and roosting. It is possible that they have a summer maternity colony on refuge 

lands as well, but this has not been documented. The refuge requested Section 7 informal consultation with 

the Service’s West Virginia Field Office under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) on all the actions 

in alternative B of this draft CCP/EA, including cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, that could potentially 

impact listed species. This process resulted in a finding that the actions are not likely to adversely affect the 

listed species or their associated habitats on the refuge. The full Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation 

form can be found in appendix I of this draft CCP/EA.

Cheat Mountain salamander—Public use on Powderline and Three-Mile Trail only occurs during winter 

months by cross-country skiing and snow shoe access when there is snow on the ground. During these times of 

year, salamanders are not active and are underground (USFWS 2009). Furthermore, because these trails are 

not open to the public outside of the winter time, the trails and the substrate on the trails remain undisturbed 

during the time of year when the salamanders are active. Therefore these public uses are not likely to adversely 

affect Cheat Mountain salamanders.

These old roads, now public use ski trails, have an altered micro-habitat and are not habitat for Cheat Mountain 

salamanders; therefore, we do not expect this species to be living in these trails. Therefore, the potential for 

Cheat Mountain salamanders to be present on the trails is limited to salamanders occasionally crossing the 

trail. 

Salamanders may cross the trail in low numbers until temperatures drop and the salamanders are no longer 

active and present on the surface. Their presence on the surface is temperature and moisture dependent, thus 

dates of emergence and submergence depend on these environmental factors and can vary from year to year 

(Pauley 1978a; 1978b; Pauley 2005 in Pauley 2008). It is estimated that when temperatures are below 550F 

salamanders are not likely to be active on the surface (USFWS 1991). Based on climate information from 

1948 to 2000, average temperatures in Canaan Valley do not exceed 550F until May 14 and fall below 550F 

after September 26 (Brooks pers. comm.). Under the current conditions of the special use permit, maintenance 

operations can only occur between October 10 and April 30. This is well beyond when salamanders are likely to 

be present on the surface. Therefore the chance of direct take is extremely unlikely (discountable). 

The chance of direct take from maintenance activities is further limited due to the expected low amount of 

active maintenance conducted on these trail sections. Maintenance typically occurs on one to two days a year on 

these higher elevations trails and consists of hand crews with one all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and trailer to haul 

equipment. ATV use is limited to usually two passes up and down the trail to move tools (Chase, pers.comm). 

Maintenance activities typically include the removal of downed trees and limbs which have fallen across the 

trail during the previous season and maintaining existing waterbars to prevent erosion. Maintenance activities 

occur within a 4-foot-wide corridor of the trail – two feet in either direction of the center line – as stipulated in 

the special use permit. Any other activities related to trail maintenance occur within the footprint of the trail. 

The risk of the maintenance crew encountering a salamander is extremely unlikely to occur (discountable). 

Trails have been noted impediments to Cheat Mountain salamander movements, possibly fragmenting and 

genetically isolating populations as well as making these populations more vulnerable to stochastic events. 

Pauley (unpublished data in USFWS 1991) found that roads, and potentially some trails, serve as barriers 

that prevent territories of different individuals from overlapping, thus fragmenting populations and gene 

pools. Heavily traveled trails can result in removal of leaves and other forest litter, leaving bare trail treads 

(USFWS 1991; West Virginia Department of NaturalResources 2000, 1999). Preliminary data suggest that 

the salamanders rarely cross trails and other openings that lack sufficient leaf litter cover (Pauley 2005 in 

Pauley and Waldron 2008). Cheat Mountain salamanders use forest floor litter as foraging cover and refugia, 

especially during the day. Therefore, the extent to which trails and roads serve as a barrier to the salamander 

most likely depends on the site-specific characteristics such as width, canopy cover, substrate material, 

compaction, and level/type of use. 

Conditions related to blocking movements for salamanders appear to be related to increased temperature and 

humidity resulting from an open tree canopy as well as the removal of vegetation and leaf litter through public 

use activities creating bare soil conditions. The cross-country ski trails that White Grass maintains are not 

used outside the ski season for public use and are not heavily traveled. Therefore excessive trampling resulting 

Compatibility Determination – Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-94 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

in the removal of litter and vegetation to create bare dirt surfaces does not occur on these trails. Because 

habitat on the trail is predominately grass and fern cover with limited rock and woody debris, it likely permits 

salamanders to move across the trail. In addition, both Powderline and Three-Mile trails are narrow and have 

partial canopy cover providing shading and cooling effects to the trail surface. This creates more suitable 

conditions for salamanders to move across the trail. The lack of bare soil conditions coupled with the presence 

of canopy cover suggest that these trails do not create a barrier to salamander movement. 

We do not expect the presence of these trails to fragment these populations or create genetic barriers. For 

this reason the trails are not likely to cause indirect adverse effects to Cheat Mountain salamanders.

The refuge will create a vegetated buffer of native tree species along these trails. Planting native tree species 

such as red spruce along the trails would eventually provide a more closed canopy over the trail and improve 

substrate and vegetation on the trail itself. Native tree species would eventually shade out all of the grass and 

fern cover which currently dominates the trails, and would improve microhabitat conditions for salamanders by 

increasing leaf litter, woody debris, and soil moisture (USFWS 1991). These trail improvements would provide a 

more conducive corridor for Cheat Mountain salamanders to move between upslope and downslope populations. 

Revegetation of refuge cross-country ski trails and increasing canopy cover is an additional conservation 

measure the refuge can accomplish to further enhance habitat conditions for the salamander. 

In the future, the refuge would also consider other options such as replacing trail segments with boardwalks 

to further facilitate salamander movement across trails. This action is one of the recommended management 

guidelines in the recovery plan for this species (USFWS 1991). In 2009, the Monongahela National Forest 

initiated a study to design more effective road and trail maintenance activities to benefit Cheat Mountain 

salamander populations (Pauley and Waldron 2008). If those results apply to habitats on the Canaan Valley 

refuge, the refuge will consider implementation of similar measures. 

Indiana Bat—Indiana bats were documented on the refuge for the first time through acoustical monitoring 

conducted by the U.S. Forest Service in 2003 (Ford 2003). Indiana bats were found foraging at two locations 

in the south end of the refuge. The refuge began conducting acoustical surveys in 2005. These surveys have 

documented three likely Indiana bat observations in the same location as the 2003 survey during 2005, 2007, 

and 2008. Additionally, acoustical surveys documented one new location for the species during 2007. Indiana 

bat calls have been documented from the refuge in the months of May, July, August, and September. Maternity 

colonies may also be present on the refuge. As stated in the Section 7 informal consultation (appendix I), crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing are not likely to adversely affect this species as these activities will not be 

disrupting hibernacula during the winter months or disrupting foraging activities during the remainder of the 

year.

Conclusion

At current and projected levels of use, potential negative effects from cross-country skiing and snowshoeing 

are not considered significant. The effects would be temporary in duration and are not expected to cause 

serious changes in animal behavior. As with other activities, we will continue to implement management actions 

which minimize potential negative effects on hydrology and water quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife. Trails 

will be monitored for potential negative effects. If evidence of unacceptable adverse effects is observed, we will 

curtail or discontinue these activities as needed to protect wildlife and habitat. We will post and enforce refuge 

regulations, and establish, post, and enforce closed areas as needed. 

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

This compatibility determination will be made available for public review and comment for 45 days as an 

appendix to the draft CCP/EA for Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. 

DETERMINATION

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

Compatibility Determination – Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-95

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY 

The refuge has developed a list of criteria for determining whether any given route would be appropriate for 

public uses, including cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. These criteria would apply to current and future 

trails. Criteria are as follows:

Checklist for Existing Routes to Be Eligible for Compatibility Consideration 

(Routes must meet all criteria)

1. Route provides an opportunity to view a variety of habitats and wildlife.

2. Route is safe for the access proposed at current use levels.

3. Route requires minimal annual maintenance (i.e, waterbars, stepping stones, etc.) to ensure safe access and to 

prevent further habitat degradation.

4. Route has a low potential for fragmenting habitat or disturbing wildlife populations.

5. Based on existing soils information, less than 50% of the route’s length occupies soil types rated as high or 

very high for compaction and/or erosiveness. The route is not rated as severely limited for hiking trails based 

on the Tucker County Soil Survey.

6. Any route crossing of sensitive soils occupies the shortest possible distance. Organic soil crossings are 

minimized or eliminated.

7. Continued use of the existing route is not likely to cause further wetland alteration or degradation. There is 

low risk that hydrology, soil stability, sensitive plant communities, riparian zones, and wildlife habitats would 

be adversely affected. 

8. Route predominately occupies modifi ed substrate (graveled, compacted, or fi lled) like logging roads and rail 

grades. 

9. Route is not incised greater than 1 foot deep over 10% of its total length.

Additional Stipulations to Ensure Compatibility:

— Refuge regulations will be posted and enforced. Closed areas will be established as needed, posted, and 

enforced. Signs necessary for visitor information, safety, and traffic control will be kept up to date. Trails 

have been blazed on refuge lands to allow cross-country skiers to follow designated routes when trails are 

snow covered.

— The known presence of a threatened or endangered species will preclude the use of an area until the refuge 

manager determines otherwise. 

— Snowshoeing and cross- country skiing are only compatible on designated roads and trails shown.

— Snowshoeing and cross-country skiing are restricted to refuge open hours: 1 hour before sunrise until 1 hour 

after sunset. 

— The refuge conducts an outreach program to promote public awareness and compliance with public use 

regulations on the refuge.

— All routes designated for public access are annually inspected for maintenance needs. Prompt action is taken 

to correct any conditions that risk public safety. Roads and trails are maintained at a level that reasonably 

accounts for safe travel. Roads are not plowed in winter and non- commercial trails are not groomed.

Compatibility Determination – Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-96 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

— Routes designated for public access are monitored periodically to determine if they continue to meet the 

compatibility criteria established by the refuge. Should monitoring and evaluation of the use(s) indicate 

that the compatibility criteria are or will be exceeded, appropriate action will be taken to ensure continued 

compatibility, including modifying or discontinuing the use. 

— Routine law enforcement patrols are conducted throughout the year. The patrols promote education and 

compliance with refuge regulations, monitor public use patterns and public safety, and document visitor 

interaction. 

— Guidelines to ensure the safety of all participants will be issued in writing to any special use permit holder 

for the activities and will be reviewed before the activity begins. 

— Potential conflicts with other public uses such as hunting, interpretation, etc. will be minimized by using 

trailhead signs and other media to inform the visitors about current public use activities as well as which 

activities are authorized in specific locations throughout the refuge. 

JUSTIFICATION

One of the secondary goals of the Refuge System is to provide opportunities for the public to develop an 

understanding of wildlife wherever those opportunities are compatible. Cross country skiing and snowshoeing 

facilitate opportunities for viewing wildlife and habitats with relatively low levels of disturbance. Visitors 

participating in this activity will be directly engaged in wildlife observation, education, and photography which 

are identified in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 as priority public uses of the Refuge 

System. 

Additionally, during much of the winter months when there is deep snow cover in the valley, cross-country 

skiing and snowshoeing are often the only methods available for facilitating priority public uses. It is likely that 

visitors participating in these activities will learn more about wildlife and habitats, the refuge, and the Refuge 

System, and will therefore support the mission of the Refuge System and the purposes of the refuge.

Cross country skiing and snowshoeing are restricted to designated roads and trails. These activities are 

limited to winter months and require sufficient snow levels to allow access. The soil surface will be frozen and 

covered in snow for most of the season, making it much less vulnerable to compaction or erosion. Vegetation 

is largely dormant during the winter and will be protected by a surface layer of snow. In addition, skis and 

snowshoes are designed to distribute weight, decreasing the potential for harming vegetation and compacting 

or eroding soils. 

Because of the established trail criteria and additional stipulations listed above, cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing are considered to be acceptable and manageable methods for facilitating priority public uses at 

Canaan Valley refuge. These uses will provide access to more remote areas of the refuge where wetland plant 

communities and other habitats may be viewed and interpreted. Trails open to this use are predominately on 

upland soils so wetlands are not affected. Because of the restrictions and management of the trail system, the 

impact to soils and possible sedimentation of wetland resources will be minimized. Because of trail habitat 

conditions and limited public use and maintenance on trails through Cheat Mountain salamander habitat there 

will not likely be adverse effects to the species. 

Furthermore, alternative B in the draft CCP/EA says that the refuge will improve habitat conditions for the 

Cheat Mountain salamander through trail revegetation and narrowing on the Kelly-Elkins tract as well as 

other physical means for improving habitat connectivity. Therefore any anticipated impacts will not affect the 

refuge’s ability to fulfill the purposes of wetland conservation established through the Emergency Wetland 

Resources Act (1986).

Most of the use is concentrated at on the Kelly-Elkins and Graham tracts which represent a small portion of 

the available wildlife habitat which remains unaffected by this use. Other public use trails are open to this 

use, however, road access to trail heads is not maintained and the trails themselves are not groomed on other 

refuge tracts. This greatly affects the numbers of users on other areas of the refuge and minimizes disturbance 

to wildlife and other potential impacts to a smaller area of refuge land. Because cross-country skiing and 

Compatibility Determination – Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-97

snowshoeing are restricted to the winter months when there is snow on the ground, disturbance from these 

activities will not cause significant impacts to wildlife populations or their habitats. We do not expect these 

activities to cause many adverse impacts because most wildlife species are less active during winter months, 

many sensitive migratory birds have already left the refuge, and it is not breeding season for the wildlife that 

may be present. This ensures the refuge will continue to meet the purposes of the Fish and Wildlife Act (1956) 

and the mission of the Refuge System to manage, conserve and protect fish and wildlife and plant resources on 

refuge land. Because ski tracks are typically narrow and trails are on established logging roads, impacts will 

be minor and therefore not affect the refuge’s ability to conserve plant resources as described in the mission 

of the Refuge System and to protect the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and its resources, a founding 

purpose for designation of the refuge in the 1979 EIS.

Providing this access will not affect the refuge’s responsibility for wetland protection or wildlife conservation 

and management as stipulated in the mission of the Refuge System, Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986) 

and the Fish and Wildlife Act (1956). No cross-country ski trails are located on the tracts acquired through 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929); therefore allowing this use will not inhibit the refuge from 

fulfilling the conservation and management of migratory birds on these tracts. Overall, this use conducted as 

described, will have negligible effects on the refuge’s ability to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley 

and the resources that the refuge was established to protect. We therefore conclude that cross-country skiing 

and snowshoeing will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the Refuge System or the 

purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Refuge Manager 

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

 (Signature) (Date)

MANDATORY 10 YEAR RE-EVALUATION DATE

 

 (Date)

LITERATURE CITED

Beale, C. M., and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? Journal of 

 Applied Ecology 41:335-343.

Brooks, S. “Canaan Valley Temps” Email to Ken Sturm, 23 March 2010. 

Chase, C. 2010. Personal Communication with Chip Chase, White Grass Ski Center, Canaan Valley, WV. 24 

 March 2010.

Compatibility Determination – Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-98 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Ford, M. 2002. Personal Communication with Mark Ford, U.S. Forest Service, Parsons, WV. May 3, 2002.

Ford, M. 2003. Memorandum to Canaan Valley NWR - Acoustic bat monitoring. U.S. Department of 

 Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Parsons, WV. 1pp.

Hammitt, W. E., and D. N. Cole. 1998. Wildlife Recreation: Ecology and Management (2nd edition). New York: 

 John Wiley & Sons. 361p.

Holm, E., and E. J. Crossman. 1986. A report on a 1985 attempt to resurvey areas within the Ontario 

 distribution of Clinostomus elongatus, the redside dace and to summarize previous records. 

 Unpublished report on file Fisheries Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Royal 

 Ontario Museum. 11 pages, 9 tables, 13 figs.

Kuss, F. R. 1986. A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation impacts. Environmental 

 Management 10:638-650.

Pauley, T.K. 2008. Status of the Federally Threatened Cheat Mountain Salamander, Plethodon nettingi, 

 (Amphibia: Caudata): Sixty years later. Proceedings of the West Virginia Academy of Science 80(2):26- 

 29.

Pauley, T. K. and J. L. Waldron. 2008. The effects of trails and gated roads on movement patterns and relative 

 abundance of the federally threatened Cheat Mountain Salamander (Plethodon nettingi). Study 

 proposal to the Monongahela National Forest. 

Rizzo, A. 2002. Personal Communications with Al Rizzo, Soil Scientist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 

 17-19, 2002.

Roovers, P., K. Verheyen, M. Hermy, and H. Gulinck. 2004. Experimental trampling and vegetation recovery 

 in some forest and heathland communities. Applied Vegetation Science 7:111-118.

Sweka, J. A., and K. J. Hartman. 2001. Effects of turbidity on prey consumption and growth in brook trout 

 and implications for bioenergetics modeling. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 

 386-393. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Acquisition 

 of lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of the Interior - 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Cheat Mountain Salamander (Plethodon nettingi) recovery plan. U.S. 

 Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final Environmental Assessment - Acquisition of lands for the Canaan 

 Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 50 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Appalachian northern flying squirrel recovery plan. West 

 Virginia Field Office, Elkins, WV.

U.S. Fish and Wildife Service (USFWS). 2009. Cheat Mountain Salamander (Plethodon netting) 5 Year 

 Review: Summary and Evaluation. West Virginia Field Office, Elkins, WV

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 1999. Performance Report: West Virginia Endangered Animal 

 Species. Project E-1-16 (1 July 1998 through 30 June 1999).

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 2000. Performance Report: West Virginia Endangered Animal 

 Species. Project E-1-17 (1 July 1999 through 30 June 2000). 

Compatibility Determination – Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-99

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE

Commercial Cross Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses

REFUGE NAME

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY 

The establishment of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was first approved in an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) released on May 30, 1979. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

decided to await the outcome of litigation surrounding a proposed storage hydroelectric facility before pursuing 

any further action. The approval of the refuge was affirmed by the Service in a 1994 Final Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact on July 11, 1994, which confirmed the adequacy of the 

previously-approved 1979 EIS. The refuge was officially established when the first tract of land was acquired 

on August 11, 1994. The Service has acquired lands for the Canaan Valley refuge under the following 

authorities:

1. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)]

2. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901b]

3. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 [16 U.S.C. 715d]

REFUGE PURPOSES 

The refuge was established to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and the continued availability 

of its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources to the citizens of West Virginia and the United States (USFWS 

1979, 1994). Additional refuge purposes as derived from the legislative authorities are as follows:

(1) “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f (a)(4)); 

(2) “... for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide 

and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions.” 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986; 16 U.S.C. 3901(b)); and,

(3) “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929; 16 U.S.C. 715d).

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is “to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans.” 16 U.S.C. 668dd (a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997).

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use?

The uses are commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing on 10 miles of designated trails on the refuge. 

While these uses are not priority public uses, they facilitate visitor participation in priority public uses (e.g., 

wildlife observation and photography). 

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Cross Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-100 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

(b) Where will these uses be conducted? 

White Grass Touring Center (White Grass) is a commercial operation that offers snowshoeing and crosscountry skiing on 10 miles of trails located on refuge lands. See map B-2 for locations of commercial crosscountry ski and snowshoe trails. 

(c) When will the uses be conducted? 

These uses occur in the winter when there is sufficient snow to allow the activities and when the refuge is open 

to the public. Most commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing occur mid-November through mid-March. 

Currently the refuge is open daily from one hour before sunrise until one hour after sunset. 

(d) How will the uses be conducted? 

The refuge permits White Grass to maintain and use approximately 10 miles of trails on the Kelly-Elkins 

and Graham tracts. Trails are accessed from Forest Road (FR) 80 or through the White Grass lodge parking 

area. This use has been authorized by annual special use permits (SUP) since 1999 when the Kelly-Elkins 

and Graham tracts were acquired by the refuge. Each annual SUP specifies terms, conditions, methods, and 

activities that are authorized. 

(e) Why are these uses being proposed? 

White Grass has operated a cross-country skiing and snowshoeing operation here since 1979, and has been 

operating under an annual SUP since the Service acquired the property in 1999. While commercial crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing are not priority public uses, they provide opportunities for visitors to observe 

and learn about the Refuge System, Canaan Valley refuge, and wildlife and habitats firsthand. During winter 

months snow cover limits pedestrian access to much of the refuge. Visitors skiing and snowshoeing on the 

refuge are able to engage in priority public uses such as wildlife observation and photography during times 

when it would be otherwise too difficult because of snow depths. These uses essentially permit the majority 

of wildlife observation, education and interpretation to occur at the refuge (outside the visitor’s center) during 

winter months when there is snow cover. 

Although much of the bird life is gone for the season and many mammal species are dormant or active only 

at night, this activity does provide opportunities for wildlife observation. Winter species such as chickadees, 

nuthatches and ravens are commonly observed. Mammal tracks are used to interpret the areas wildlife 

populations during winter months. This exposure may lead to a better understanding of and interest in 

natural ecosystems, the importance of national wildlife refuges, and the role of the Service in protecting 

and restoring natural resources. Additionally the permittee is required to provide environmental education 

programs regularly throughout the season. These programs are always well received with typically 40 or more 

participants and require minimal staff oversight. This use allows the refuge to reach large numbers of people 

of a unique demographic during otherwise low visitation periods.

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

The following list estimates the required costs for the refuge to administer and manage commercial crosscountry skiing on the refuge. They do not include the costs of new construction, kiosks, signs, and other costs 

associated with alternative B (the Service-preferred alternative). These costs are described in appendix E in 

a Refuge Operating and Needs and Service Asset Maintenance Management System data list. They also do 

not cover un-anticipated costs such as participation in search and rescue operations. The refuge officer is the 

primary contact for any emergency operations on the refuge, however local resources are available to assist 

and provide significant resources if necessary. Because such an incident is uncommon and unpredictable, these 

costs are not assumed in the resources estimate below.

COSTS

Staff time associated with administration of this use is related to administration of the SUP, maintaining 

kiosks and gates, sign-posting roads and trails, informing the public about new refuge uses, conducting visitor 

use surveys, analyzing visitor use patterns, monitoring the effects of public uses on refuge resources and 

visitors, and providing information to the public and enforcing refuge regulations. All trail maintenance and 

repair is conducted by White Grass staff and volunteers.

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Cross Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-101

Annual costs associated with the administration of trail use on the refuge are estimated below:

Kiosk Maintenance and Repair: 

■ WG-10 Equipment Operator for 1 work days = $262.91

Planning trail connections, working with partners

■ GS-13 Refuge Manager for 1 working days = $450.24

Administration of permits, meetings with White Grass staff, Consultations with refuge staff

■ GS-11/12 Deputy Refuge Manager for 2 work days = $608.14

Law enforcement, monitoring trail users and their interactions with each other, visitor services, and 

sign maintenance needs while conducting other LE activities.

■ GS-9 Refuge Officer for 10 work days = $2457.60

Monitoring environmental effects of pedestrian travel

■ GS-11 Wildlife Biologist for 2 work days (monitoring) = $594.56

■ GS-7 Biological Science Technician for 2 work days (monitoring) = $1406.16

Providing information to the public, working with and training Adopt a Trail volunteers, evaluating and 

planning trail improvements, and analyzing traffic counter and user data

■ GS-11 Visitor Services Manager for 10 work days = $3530.40

Vehicle fuel / law enforcement patrols = $100.00

Total Estimated Costs = $9410.01

FY 2009 Budget Allocations:

 Employee Salaries and benefits = $624,039.5

 Fixed costs (utilities, fuel, administrative) = $211,415.23

 Base maintenance = $50,000

 Discretionary Funds (maps, printing, etc.) = $62,243.32

 Total Available Funds for FY 2009 = $947,698.08

The financial and staff resources necessary to provide and administer these uses at their current levels are 

now available. We expect the resources to continue in the future, subject to availability of appropriated funds. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE 

Commercial operations on the Kelly-Elkins and Graham tracts include pre- and post-season trail maintenance 

and grooming operations during ski seasons. Ski trails that are maintained vary in width, from approximately 

four feet to 15 feet. Maintenance during the ski season involves grooming established ski trails with a 

snowmobile. Snowmobile use is limited to necessary trail maintenance operations only. No recreational 

snowmobile use is allowed. 

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Cross Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-102 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

During the ski season (November - April) an average of 5,000 skiers use the trails on the Kelly-Elkins and 

Graham tracts. Annual user fluctuations depend on snow cover and timing and can vary from 3,000 to over 

7,000 visitors during the season. This, in addition to grooming activities, could cause temporary wildlife 

disturbances to mammals and bird species on these tracts. In general, negative effects on habitat and wildlife 

associated with these activities are considered minimal. Mammals are less active during winter months, 

sensitive migratory birds have largely left the refuge, and it is not breeding season for any of the wildlife 

that may be present. Commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing also are limited to winter and 

require sufficient snow cover to allow access. Additionally, public use of this area is typically concentrated 

on weekends when there is snow. Therefore the effects of the use are concentrated on the weekends so that 

wildlife disturbance is not constant. Surface water and soil may be frozen for at least a portion of this time, 

most vegetation is dormant, and sensitive habitat will largely be protected by a surface layer of snow. In 

addition, skis and snowshoes are designed to distribute weight, decreasing potential for eroding soils near 

waterways. Commercial skiing and snowshoeing are limited to established roads and trails, and no recreational 

snowmobiles are allowed. Following are more specific descriptions of potential impacts associated with crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing. 

Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality: Visitor use has the potential to contaminate the Blackwater River 

and its tributaries through soil sedimentation into streams caused by trail maintenance and grooming efforts 

or from actual skiing and snowshoeing. There may also be runoff of petroleum products from parking lots or 

snowmobiles used for trail grooming. 

There may be additional impacts to water resources where trails cross the refuge’s rivers, streams, and 

tributaries increasing the potential short-term and long-term downstream erosion and sedimentation. 

Additional visitor use also increases the potential for contaminating rivers, streams, and open water 

through the runoff of petroleum products from parking lots. Trail maintenance activities associated with the 

commercial operation may have negative effects on hydrology and water quality. Trail grooming during the ski 

season involves the use of snowmobiles. As mentioned previously, snowmobiles can be a source of petroleum 

products that can contaminate water sources and operating these machines near waterways may lead increased 

soil erosion and sedimentation in the water. 

The refuge minimizes adverse effects on water resources in a variety of ways. Refuge staff routinely monitors 

roads and trails for damage and White Grass is required to remediate problems as described in the permit. 

Commercial trail maintenance and grooming activities must comply with the terms and conditions of the annual 

SUP, ensuring any potential negative effects are minimized. The refuge also conducts public outreach efforts to 

notify visitors of proper precautions, including carrying out all trash. This helps minimize risks associated with 

visitor use on the refuge. Because of these efforts, combined with the seasonal limitations, trail restrictions, 

and stipulations listed in this document, impacts to water resources are expected to be minimal.

Effects on Vegetation: Short-term effects consist of the deterioration of plant material, whereas long-term 

effects of trampling include direct and indirect effects on vegetation and soils like diminishing soil porosity, 

aeration and nutrient availability through soil compaction (Kuss 1986, Roovers et al. 2004). Compaction of soils 

thus limits the ability of plants, particularly rare and sensitive species, to revegetate affected areas (Hammitt 

and Cole 1998). Kuss (1986) found, plant species adapted to wet or moist habitats are the most sensitive and 

increased moisture content reduces the ability of the soil to support recreational traffic. 

Overall effects on vegetation are expected to be minimal. As mentioned previously, skiing and snowshoeing are 

limited to winter and require sufficient snow cover to allow access. Vegetation is largely dormant during the 

winter and will largely be protected by a surface layer of snow. In addition, skis and snowshoes are designed 

to distribute weight, decreasing potential for compacting or eroding soils and trampling vegetation. Skiing 

and snowshoeing are limited to designated roads and trails, and no recreational snowmobiling is allowed. 

Designated roads and trails do not have any known occurrences of rare plant species on their surface that 

would be impacted by these uses. Some rare plants have been documented in habitat adjacent to trails. Users 

leaving designated trails could adversely affect adjacent vegetation; however, because of the time of year and 

low numbers of visitors expected to leave the trails, negative effects are expected to minimal. 

While recreational snowmobiling is not allowed, snow mobiles are authorized to groom the commercial trails. 

In-season trail grooming is limited to the commercial trails. To protect natural resources in the area, the 

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Cross Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-103

refuge specifies appropriate terms and conditions for snow mobile grooming in the company’s annual SUP. 

Trails will be monitored, any problem areas will be identified, and appropriate restoration and protection 

efforts will be made. If adverse impacts to vegetation are observed, the refuge will take necessary measures, 

such as remediation and trail closures, to restore plant communities. 

Effects on Soils: Soils can be compacted and eroded as a result of continued use of roads and trails. The 

Mauch Chunk-derived soil in Canaan Valley is particularly vulnerable to mechanical erosion when the 

vegetation has been removed (Rizzo 2002). If compacted, Mauch Chunk soils can facilitate rapid water runoff 

that accelerates erosion down slope (Rizzo 2002). 

Trail maintenance and grooming on the commercial trails could have negative effects on soils. In general, 

trail maintenance involves using hand tools or small motorized equipment (e.g., chain saws and all-terrain 

vehicles (ATV) in the off-season) to keep trails clear. Maintenance crews use snowmobiles to access trails for 

maintenance in the winter. The bulk of the work is done by foot access in the off-season. Trail maintenance 

and grooming associated with the commercial trails is addressed under the annual SUP. This permit stipulates 

a series of requirements to minimize or avoid any potential negative effects. Trail maintenance activities are 

limited to occur only between October and April of each year, which avoids the growing and breeding season of 

most species.

Overall effects on soils are expected to be minimal. Commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing are 

limited to winter and require sufficient snow cover to allow access. The soil surface will likely be frozen 

for some of the season, making it much less vulnerable to compaction or erosion. When these activities are 

occurring, soils also will largely be protected by a surface layer of snow. In addition, skis and snow shoes 

are designed to distribute weight, decreasing potential for compacting or eroding soils. Over the long-term, 

the risk of erosion and sedimentation problems that might affect soils in these habitats would increase with 

increased visitor use and trail use. However, given the time of year, locations, and methods used, increased 

levels of skiing and snowshoeing are not expected to significantly affect soils on the refuge. 

Effects on Wildlife: Short-term and long-term adverse impacts would be expected for wildlife populations 

in relation to increasing trail miles and visitor use. Disturbances will vary by wildlife species involved and the 

type, level, frequency, duration and the time of year activities occur. Beale and Monaghan (2004) found that 

adverse effects to wildlife increase as number of users increase. The study found that an animal’s response to 

one visitor walking down a trail is entirely different than its response to a group of users walking down a trail. 

The high density of trails per acre on the Kelly-Elkins and Graham tracts increases the likelihood of wildlife 

disturbance. The effects of roads and trails on plants and animals are complex and not limited to trail width. 

Trail use can disturb areas outside the immediate trail corridor (Trails and Wildlife Task Force 1998, Miller et 

al. 2001). Miller et al. (1998) describe a 75-meter zone of influence where bird abundance and nesting activities 

(including nest success) were found to be affected based on distance to the trail. Bird communities in this 

study were apparently affected by the presence of recreational roads and trails, where common species (e.g., 

American robins) were found near trails and rare species (e.g., grasshopper sparrows) were found farther from 

trails. Songbird nest failure was also greater near trails (Miller et al. 1998). Taylor and Knight (2003) describe 

a similar disturbance zone of 100 meters for mammals in which mammal activity is affected by trail presence 

and use. This 100-meter disturbance zone helps demonstrate the potential impacts to wildlife on the crosscountry ski and snowshoe trails during the winter months. Using this 100-meter disturbance buffer around the 

commercial cross-country skiing and snow shoeing trails, it can be concluded that 501 of the 992 acres of the 

Kelly-Elkins and Graham tracts are potentially impacted by cross-country skiing trails. 

The use of trails in the winter for commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing have similar wildlife 

disturbance effects as those which occur through pedestrian travel on these trails during the other seasons. 

One of the primary differences is that migratory birds are not present and resident species are not breeding 

or raising young during the winter months. Additionally, many mammal species are less active during winter 

months. However, winter conditions cause increased stress because of extreme weather conditions and limited 

food availability (Hammit and Cole 1998). Additionally, some species which are typically more active during 

evening hours in the summer months increase activity during daylight hours in the winter months often in 

response to prey species activity patterns. Both bird and mammal species which are present and active can be 

negatively affected proportionally greater than other times of the year to the same level of disturbance because 

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Cross Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-104 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

of these added environmental stressors. Bird species that are common in the wintertime include chickadees, 

nuthatches and ravens. A variety of mammal tracks are also commonly observed.

Long-term adverse impacts from increased trail miles and trail use might pose a concern to refuge fisheries. 

Trails that have stream and river crossings would likely degrade over time with increased use and contribute 

to downstream sedimentation and turbidity, which has been found to be a stressor to brook trout (Sweka 

and Hartman 2001) and redside dace (Holm and Crossman 1986) populations that are sensitive to habitat 

degradation. The refuge will monitor stream and river crossings closely and remediate any damaged areas to 

minimize adverse impacts associated with trail use. However, during winter months when the ground is frozen, 

erosive potential of soils are reduced and impacts of cross-country ski use would be minimal to erosion and 

sedimentation of aquatic habitats. Small bridges are erected over drainages on the Kelly-Elkins and Graham 

tracts at the beginning of each ski season to further protect streams from erosive effects of this use.

Trail maintenance on the commercial trails could disturb a variety of wildlife including white-tailed deer, 

black bear, turkey and a variety of migratory birds. Using snow mobiles to groom trails may also disturb 

over-wintering species (e.g., white-tailed deer). Grooming activities are not permitted at night which protects 

nocturnal species from disturbance. Conditions for trail maintenance and grooming associated with the 

commercial trails are addressed under the annual SUP. Stipulations to ensure compatibility are listed at the 

end of this compatibility determination and include a series of requirements to minimize or avoid any potential 

negative effects to wildlife or habitat.

West Virginia northern flying squirrels have also been documented on refuge property near the end of FR 80. 

This species has recently been removed from the endangered species list. The recovery plan (USFWS 2001) 

notes that habitat modification may create a competitive advantage for the southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys 

volans), although the extent to which a logging road or trail would create conditions conducive for this is 

unknown. Some research has found northern flying squirrels occupying den sites near logging roads, skid 

trails, and on hiking trails (Ford 2002). Routes designated for these uses are pre-existing roads and trails some 

of which have been in existence for many years. No new habitat clearing is planned in this area; however, some 

vegetation clearing may be required for maintaining the trail corridor. 

As mentioned previously, we will periodically evaluate these activities to determine any effects they may 

have. If evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts appears, the location(s) of activities will be curtailed or 

discontinued as needed. We will take all necessary measures to mitigate any negative effects on wildlife 

associated with skiing and snowshoeing. We will evaluate roads, trails, and activities periodically to assess 

potential negative effects. If evidence of unacceptable adverse effects is observed, we will curtail or discontinue 

activities as needed. We will post and enforce refuge regulations, and establish, post, and enforce closed areas 

as needed. However, negative effects on wildlife are expected to be minimal. As discussed previously, crosscountry skiing and snowshoeing are limited to winter months and require sufficient snow levels to allow access.

The refuge also recognizes that large group sizes may amplify negative effects to wildlife. Therefore, groups 

larger than 10 are required to notify the refuge prior to visiting to determine if a SUP will be needed. 

Requiring large groups to contact the refuge prior to visiting will also enable the refuge to understand which 

trails are preferred by large groups, and to monitor any potential excessive wildlife disturbance created by 

large groups. Having the ability to monitor these kinds of disturbances will enable the refuge to mitigate 

impacts associated with large groups. Examples of mitigation may include directing large groups to less 

sensitive habitats during breeding seasons or assigning refuge staff to lead or meet with the group while on 

refuge lands. Limiting group size will also increase the quality of the experience and decrease the potential of 

conflicting with other users’ experience. 

Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species: There are two federally listed species known to occur 

on the refuge, and one species that has recently been de-listed, as discussed in the previous section. Cheat 

Mountain salamanders (Plethodon nettingi), listed as threatened, have been documented near the upper 

section of FR 80, and near the cross-country ski trails in that area. Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis), listed 

as endangered, are known to use the refuge’s forested areas for summer foraging and may have a summer 

maternity colony on refuge lands as well. The refuge requested Section 7 informal consultation with the 

Service’s West Virginia Field Office (WVFO) under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) on all the 

actions in alternative B of this draft Cooperative Conservation Plan (CCP)/Environmental Assessment (EA), 

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Cross Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-105

including commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing, that could potentially impact listed species. This 

process resulted in a finding that the proposed actions are not likely to adversely affect the listed species or 

their associated habitats on the refuge. The full intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation form can be found 

in appendix I of this draft CCP/EA.

Cheat Mountain salamander—Public use on Powderline and Three-Mile Trail only occurs during winter 

months by cross-country skiing and snow shoe access when there is snow on the ground. During these times of 

year, salamanders are not active and are underground (USFWS 2009). Furthermore, because these trails are 

not open to the public outside of the winter time, the trails and the substrate on the trails remain undisturbed 

during the time of year when the salamanders are active. Therefore these public uses are not likely to adversely 

affect Cheat Mountain salamanders.

These old roads, now public use ski trails, have an altered micro-habitat and are not habitat for Cheat Mountain 

salamanders; therefore, we do not expect this species to be living in these trails. Therefore, the potential for 

Cheat Mountain salamanders to be present on the trails is limited to salamanders occasionally crossing the 

trail. 

Salamanders may cross the trail in low numbers until temperatures drop and the salamanders are no longer 

active and present on the surface. Their presence on the surface is temperature and moisture dependent, thus 

dates of emergence and submergence depend on these environmental factors and can vary from year to year 

(Pauley 1978a; 1978b; Pauley 2005 in Pauley 2008). It is estimated that when temperatures are below 550F 

salamanders are not likely to be active on the surface (USFWS 1991). Based on climate information from 1948 

to 2000, average temperatures in Canaan Valley do not exceed 550F until May 14 and fall below 550F after 

September 26 (Brooks pers. comm.). Under the current conditions of the SUP, maintenance operations can only 

occur between October 10 and April 30. This is well beyond when salamanders are likely to be present on the 

surface. Therefore the chance of direct take is extremely unlikely (discountable). 

The chance of direct take from maintenance activities is further limited due to the expected low amount of 

active maintenance conducted on these trail sections. Maintenance typically occurs on one to two days a year on 

these higher elevations trails and consists of hand crews with one ATV and trailer to haul equipment. ATV use 

is limited to usually two passes up and down the trail to move tools (Chase, pers.comm). Maintenance activities 

typically include the removal of downed trees and limbs which have fallen across the trail during the previous 

season and maintaining existing waterbars to prevent erosion. Maintenance activities occur within a 4-footwide corridor of the trail – two feet in either direction of the center line – as stipulated in the SUP. Any other 

activities related to trail maintenance occur within the footprint of the trail. The risk of the maintenance crew 

encountering a salamander is extremely unlikely to occur (discountable). 

Trails have been noted impediments to Cheat Mountain salamander movements, possibly fragmenting and 

genetically isolating populations as well as making these populations more vulnerable to stochastic events. 

Pauley (unpublished data in USFWS 1991) found that roads, and potentially some trails, serve as barriers 

that prevent territories of different individuals from overlapping, thus fragmenting populations and gene 

pools. Heavily traveled trails can result in removal of leaves and other forest litter, leaving bare trail treads 

(USFWS 1991; WVDNR 2000, 1999). Preliminary data suggest that the salamander rarely cross trails and 

other openings that lack sufficient leaf litter cover (Pauley 2005 in Pauley and Waldron 2008). Cheat Mountain 

salamander use forest floor litter as foraging cover and refugia, especially during the day. Therefore, the 

extent to which trails and roads serve as a barrier to the salamander most likely depends on the site-specific 

characteristics such as width, canopy cover, substrate material, compaction, and level/type of use. 

Conditions related to blocking movements for salamanders appear to be related to increased temperature and 

humidity resulting from an open tree canopy as well as the removal of vegetation and leaf litter through public 

use activities creating bare soil conditions. The cross-country ski trails that White Grass maintains are not 

used outside the ski season for public use and are not heavily traveled. Therefore excessive trampling resulting 

in the removal of litter and vegetation to create bare dirt surfaces does not occur on these trails. Because 

habitat on the trail is predominately grass and fern cover with limited rock and woody debris, it likely permits 

salamanders to move across the trail. In addition, both Powderline and Three-Mile trails are narrow and have 

partial canopy cover providing shading and cooling effects to the trail surface. This creates more suitable 

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Cross Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-106 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

conditions for salamanders to move across the trail. The lack of bare soil conditions coupled with the presence 

of canopy cover suggest that these trails do not create a barrier to salamander movement. 

We do not expect the presence of these trails to fragment these populations creating genetic barriers. For this 

reason the trails are not likely to cause indirect adverse effects to Cheat Mountain salamanders.

Additional benefits to Cheat Mountain salamander populations would be expected from reforestation of the 

edges of Powderline and Three-Mile cross-country ski trails. 

The refuge therefore proposes to create a vegetated buffer of native tree species along these trails. Planting 

native tree species such as red spruce along the trails would eventually provide a more closed canopy over 

the trail and improve substrate and vegetation on the trail itself. Native tree species would eventually shade 

out all of the grass and fern cover which currently dominates the trails, and would improve microhabitat 

conditions for salamanders by increasing leaf litter, woody debris, and soil moisture (USFWS 1991). These 

trail improvements would provide a more conducive corridor for Cheat Mountain salamanders to move between 

upslope and downslope populations. Revegetation of refuge cross-country ski trails and increasing canopy cover 

is an additional conservation measure the refuge can accomplish to further enhance habitat conditions for the 

salamander. 

In the future, the refuge would also consider other options such as replacing trail segments with boardwalks 

to further facilitate salamander movement across trails. This action is one of the recommended management 

guidelines in the recovery plan for this species (USFWS 1991). In 2009, the Monongahela National Forest 

initiated a study to design more effective road and trail maintenance activities to benefit Cheat Mountain 

salamander populations (Pauley and Waldron 2008). If those results apply to habitats on the Canaan Valley 

refuge, the refuge will consider implementation of similar measures. 

Indiana Bat—Indiana bats were documented on the refuge for the first time through acoustical monitoring 

conducted by the U.S. Forest Service in 2003 (Ford 2003). Indiana bats were found foraging at two locations 

in the south end of the refuge. The refuge began conducting acoustical surveys in 2005. These surveys have 

documented three likely Indiana bat observations in the same location as the 2003 survey during 2005, 2007, 

and 2008. Additionally, acoustical surveys documented one new location for the species during 2007. Indiana 

bat calls have been documented from the refuge in the months of May, July, August, and September. It is 

likely that Indiana bats use the Kelly-Elkins property for foraging habitat, particularly in openings such as the 

existing logging roads and maintained ski trails. Commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing are not 

likely to cause impacts to this species as these activities will not be disrupting hibernacula during the winter 

months or disrupting foraging activities the remainder of the year.

Because of seasonal restrictions and the lack of hiberbacula on the refuge, no adverse effects are expected on 

Indiana bats during the ski/snow shoe season. It is possible that trail maintenance activities on commercial 

trails could cause minor disturbances to this species; however, since these activities have been occurring for 

many years, are restricted to day time hours, and must comply with the terms and conditions of the SUP, 

any potential negative effects are expected to be minimal. We will periodically evaluate these activities to 

determine any effects they may have on listed species, and we will initiate consultation with the Service’s West 

Virginia Field Office whenever needed. If evidence of unacceptable adverse effects appears, the location(s) of 

activities will be curtailed or discontinued as needed. 

Under the described conditions and use levels, these public uses will not cause any direct or indirect adverse 

effects to threatened or endangered species. 

CONCLUSION

At current and projected levels of use, potential negative effects from commercial cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing are not considered significant. The effects would be temporary in duration and are not expected 

to cause serious changes in behavior. As with other activities, we will continue to minimize potential negative 

effects on hydrology and water quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife. This includes regular maintenance 

operations to ensure trail stability and erosion control measures. Trails and roads will be monitored for 

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Cross Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-107

potential negative effects. If evidence of unacceptable adverse effects is observed, we will curtail or discontinue 

these activities as needed to protect wildlife and habitat. We will post and enforce refuge regulations, and 

establish, post, and enforce closed areas as needed. 

In addition to the above measures, the annual SUP authorizing commercial cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing outlines specific maintenance and grooming methods that may be used as well as timing, duration, 

and any other requirements. These requirements ensure minimal negative effects on soil, habitat, and wildlife. 

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

This compatibility determination will be made available for public review and comment for 45 days as an 

appendix to the draft CCP/EA for Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. 

DETERMINATION

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY 

The refuge has developed a list of criteria for determining whether any given route would be appropriate for 

public uses, including commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. These criteria would apply to current 

and future trails. Criteria are as follows:

Checklist for Existing Routes to Be Eligible for Compatibility Consideration 

(Routes must meet all criteria)

1. Route provides an opportunity to view a variety of habitats and wildlife.

2. Route is safe for the access proposed at current use levels.

3. Route requires minimal annual maintenance (i.e, waterbars, stepping stones, etc.) to ensure safe access and to 

prevent further habitat degradation.

4. Route has a low potential for fragmenting habitat or disturbing wildlife populations.

5. Based on existing soils information, less than 50% of the route’s length occupies soil types rated as high or 

very high for compaction and/or erosiveness. The route is not rated as severely limited for hiking trails based 

on the Tucker County Soil Survey.

6. Any route crossing of sensitive soils occupies the shortest possible distance. Organic soil crossings are 

minimized or eliminated.

7. Continued use of the existing route is not likely to cause further wetland alteration or degradation. There is 

low risk that hydrology, soil stability, sensitive plant communities, riparian zones, and wildlife habitats would 

be adversely affected. 

8. Route predominately occupies modifi ed substrate (graveled, compacted, or fi lled) like logging roads and rail 

grades. 

9. Route is not incised greater than 1 foot deep over 10% of its total length.

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Cross Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-108 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Additional Stipulations to ensure compatibility:

— Refuge regulations will be posted and enforced. Closed areas will be established as needed, posted, and 

enforced. Signs necessary for visitor information, safety, and traffic control will be kept up to date. 

— The known presence of a threatened or endangered species will preclude the use of an area until the refuge 

manager determines otherwise. 

— Commercial snowshoeing and cross-country skiing are only compatible on designated roads and trails..

— Commercial snowshoeing and cross-country skiing are restricted to refuge open hours: 1 hour before sunrise 

until 1 hour after sunset. Night grooming is prohibited.

— Skiing off designated open trails by permittee staff and customers is prohibited.

— Trail clearing (cutting woody vegetation) can occur only from the center point of the existing trail to two feet 

on either side of the center point to create a corridor four feet wide, even if the trail itself is wider than four 

feet.

— Trail clearing operations must only be performed from October 10 through April 30.

— The use of all-terrain vehicles is prohibited except for spring and fall maintenance operations.

— A written trail maintenance schedule will be submitted and approved by the refuge manager prior to 

initiating any trail maintenance.

— All material removed from the permitted ski trails during trail maintenance will be placed on the side of the 

trail. The removal of any materials from the refuge, including wood, is prohibited.

— Snowmobiles may be used for trail grooming and skier rescue operations only. No recreational snowmobile is 

permitted.

— Permittee will work with the refuge to develop and provide monthly interpretive programs that teach 

visitors about the refuge system, local ecology, and the environment.

— The refuge conducts an outreach program to promote public awareness and compliance with public use 

regulations on the refuge. The permittee is required to conduct monthly outreach and education programs 

related to refuge resources, and the local ecology to further visitors’ understanding of the Refuge System 

and the purposes of the refuge.

— All routes designated for public access are annually inspected for maintenance needs. Prompt action is taken 

to correct any conditions that risk public safety. Roads and trails are maintained at a level that reasonably 

accounts for safe travel. Roads are not plowed in winter and non-commercial trails are not groomed.

— Routes designated for cross-country use on Kelly-Elkins and Graham Tract are monitored annually to 

determine if they continue to meet the compatibility criteria established by the refuge. Should monitoring 

and evaluation of the use(s) indicate that the compatibility criteria are or will be exceeded, appropriate action 

will be taken to ensure continued compatibility, including modifying or discontinuing the use. 

— Routine law enforcement patrols are conducted. The patrols promote education and compliance with refuge 

regulations, monitor public use patterns and public safety, and document visitor interaction. 

— The commercial skiing operation must obtain and abide by a SUP annually. All other organizations 

conducting for-profit group tours or activities on the refuge must also obtain and abide by a SUP. A fee may 

be charged for the SUP. The areas used by permit will be closely monitored to evaluate the impacts on the 

resource. If adverse impacts appear, the activity will be curtailed or discontinued.

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Cross Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-109

— Guidelines to ensure the safety of all participants will be issued in writing to the SUP holder for the 

activities and will be reviewed before the activity begins. 

— Potential conflicts with other public uses such as hunting, interpretation, etc. will be minimized by using 

trailhead signs and other media to inform the visitors about current public use activities as well as which 

activities are authorized in specific locations throughout the refuge. 

— The SUP is granted upon the express condition that the United States of America, its agents and employees 

shall be free from any and all liabilities and claims for damages, injuries, and/or suits for or by reason of any 

injury to any person or property of any kind whatsoever, whether to the person or property of the permitee, 

its agents, employees, members, or third parties, from any cause or causes whatsoever, including ordinary 

negligence attributable to the United States, while in or upon the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

during the term of this permit, arising out of or in any way connected to any of the activities authorized 

under this permit, including but not limited to the use of refuge lands for skiing and or other recreational 

activities, during the term of this permit, and the permitee hereby covenants and agrees to indemnify, 

defend, save and hold harmless the United States of America, its agents and employees from all such 

liabilities, expenses and costs on account of or by reason of any property damage, personal injuries, deaths, 

liabilities, claims, suits or losses however occurring or damages arising out of the same. This obligation shall 

survive the termination of the agreement and is intended to be as broad and inclusive as permitted by the 

laws of the State of West Virginia and if any portion hereof is held invalid, it is agreed that the balance shall, 

notwithstanding, continue in full legal force and effect. 

 

— The permitee shall prior to the effective date of the permit provide the refuge manager with a Certificate 

of Insurance evidencing that it has obtained and will maintain during the term of this agreement 

Comprehensive General Liability and Property Damage insurance against claims occasioned by the 

actions or omissions of the permitee, its agents and employees in carrying out the activities and operations 

authorized hereunder. Such insurance shall be in an amount commensurate with the degree of risk and the 

scope and size of such activities authorized hereunder, but in any event, the limits of liability shall not be 

less than $2,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 aggregate. If claims reduce available insurance below 

the required per occurrence limits, the permitee shall obtain additional insurance to restore the required 

limits. An umbrella or excess liability policy, in addition to a Comprehensive General Liability Policy, may be 

used to achieve the required limits. All liability policies shall name the United States of America as a named 

insured or shall specify that the insurance company shall have no right of subrogation against the United 

States and shall have no recourse against the Government for payment of any premium or assessment. 

JUSTIFICATION

One of the secondary goals of the Refuge System is to provide opportunities for the public to develop an 

understanding for wildlife wherever those opportunities are compatible. Commercial cross-country skiing 

and snowshoeing provide increased opportunities for viewing wildlife and habitats with relatively low levels of 

disturbance. Visitors participating in this activity will be directly engaged in wildlife observation, education, 

interpretation and photography which are identified in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 

as the priority public uses of the Refuge System. Additionally, during much of the winter season when there 

is deep snow cover on the refuge, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing are often the only methods available 

for facilitating priority public uses. The Service and the Refuge System have established goals of providing 

opportunities for the public to observe wildlife and habitats. Commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing 

provide additional opportunities for viewing wildlife and habitats with relatively low levels of disturbance. It is 

likely that visitors participating in these activities will learn more about local wildlife and habitats, the refuge, 

and the Refuge System. 

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Cross Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-110 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing are restricted to designated roads and trails on the KellyElkins and Graham tracts. These activities are limited to winter months and require sufficient snow levels to 

allow access. These uses essentially permit the majority of wildlife observation, photography, education and 

interpretation to occur at the refuge (outside the visitor’s center) during winter season when there is snow 

cover. These uses are concentrated, which reduces the overall impact in other portions of the refuge. Habitat 

which is disturbed represents the largest habitat type that the refuge protects and manages and therefore the 

disturbance that does occur is offset by the large percentage of similar habitats on the refuge which remain 

undisturbed. 

Because these activities are limited to winter months, the soil surface will be frozen and covered with snow 

for most of the season, making it much less vulnerable to compaction or erosion. Vegetation is largely dormant 

during the winter and will be protected by a surface layer of snow. In addition, skis and snowshoes are 

designed to distribute weight, decreasing the potential for harming vegetation and compacting or eroding 

soils. Due to trail habitat conditions and limited public use and maintenance on trails through Cheat Mountain 

salamander habitat there will not likely be adverse effects to the species. Furthermore, the refuge will improve 

habitat conditions for the Cheat Mountain salamander through trail revegetation on the Kelly-Elkins tract as 

well as other physical means for improving habitat

Because of the established trail criteria and additional stipulations listed above, cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing are considered to be acceptable and manageable methods for facilitating priority public uses at 

Canaan Valley refuge. Trails open to this use are entirely on upland soils. Small drainages cross these trails 

but are maintained to ensure proper drainage and are bridged in the winter so that ski and snowshoe use can 

not cause erosion or sedimentation. Because of the restrictions and management of the trail system, the impact 

to soils and possible sedimentation of wetland resources are minimized. Therefore these anticipated impacts 

will not affect the refuge’s ability to fulfill the purposes to conserve wetlands of Canaan Valley as established 

through the Emergency Wetland Resources Act (1986).

This use is concentrated on the Kelly-Elkins and Graham tracts which represent a small portion of the available 

wildlife habitat which is unaffected by this use. Other public use trails are open to cross-country skiing and 

snowshoeing, however, road access to trail heads is not maintained and the trails themselves are not groomed 

on other refuge tracts. This greatly affects the numbers of users on other areas of the refuge and minimizes 

disturbance to wildlife and other potential impacts to a smaller area of refuge land. We do not expect these 

activities to cause many adverse impacts because most mammal species are less active during winter months, 

amphibians are dormant, many sensitive migratory birds have already left the refuge, and it is not breeding 

season for the wildlife that may be present. 

Although some species of birds, small mammals and deer may be observed and disturbed by this activity, the 

overall effects will be mitigated by the lower numbers encountered, and the abundance of similar habitat which 

is not affected by this use. Most mammal observations during winter are typically through the interpretation 

of tracks left from night time activities, therefore most mammal disturbance will be minimal as this activity 

is not permitted at night. This ensures the refuge will continue to meet the purposes of the Fish and Wildlife 

Act (1956) and the mission of the Refuge System to manage, conserve and protect fish and wildlife and plant 

resources on refuge land. Because ski trails are typically narrow and are on established logging roads, impacts 

will be minor and therefore not affect the refuge’s ability to conserve plant resources as described in the 

mission of the Refuge System and to protect the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and its resources, a 

founding purpose for designation of the refuge in the 1979 EIS.

Providing this access will not affect the refuge’s responsibility for wetland protection or wildlife conservation 

and management as stipulated in the mission of the Refuge System, Emergency Wetlands Resources Act 

(1986) and the Fish and Wildlife Act (1956). No cross-country ski trails are located on the tracts acquired 

through the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929); therefore allowing this use will not inhibit the refuge 

from fulfilling the conservation and management of migratory birds on these tracts. Issuance of the SUP will 

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Cross Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-111

include stipulations to ensure the compatibility of this use. These stipulations will include specific maintenance 

and grooming methods. This activity directly contributes to the mission of the Refuge System, as required by 

50 Code of Federal Regulations §29.1, by facilitating the main opportunities for wildlife observation, education, 

interpretation and photography during winter months. Overall, this use, conducted as described, will have 

negligible effects on the refuge’s ability to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and the resources 

that the refuge was established to protect. We therefore conclude that commercial cross-country skiing 

and snowshoeing will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the Refuge System or the 

purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Refuge Manager 

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

 (Signature) (Date)

MANDATORY 10 YEAR RE-EVALUATION DATE

 

 

 (Date)

LITERATURE CITED

Beale, C. M., and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? Journal of 

 Applied Ecology 41:335-343.

Brooks, S. “Canaan Valley Temps” Email to Ken Sturm, 23 March 2010. 

Chase, C. 2010. Personal Communication with Chip Chase, White Grass Ski Center, Canaan Valley, WV. 24 

 March 2010.

Ford, M. 2002. Personal Communication with Mark Ford, U.S. Forest Service, Parsons, WV. May 3, 2002.

Ford, M. 2003. Memorandum to Canaan Valley NWR - Acoustic bat monitoring. U.S. Department of 

 Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Parsons, WV. 1pp.

Hammitt, W. E., and D. N. Cole. 1998. Wildlife Recreation: Ecology and Management (2nd edition). New York: 

 John Wiley & Sons. 361p.

Holm, E., and E. J. Crossman. 1986. A report on a 1985 attempt to resurvey areas within the Ontario 

 distribution of Clinostomus elongatus, the redside dace and to summarize previous records. 

 Unpublished report on file Fisheries Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Royal 

 Ontario Museum. 11 pages, 9 tables, 13 figs.

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Cross Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-112 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Kuss, F. R. 1986. A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation impacts. Environmental 

 Management 10:638-650.

Miller, S., R. L. Knight, C. K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. 

 Ecological Applications: Vol. 8, 1:162-169

______. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:124-132.

Pauley, T.K. 2008. Status of the Federally Threatened Cheat Mountain Salamander, Plethodon nettingi, 

 (Amphibia: Caudata): Sixty years later. Proceedings of the West Virginia Academy of Science 

 80(2):26-29.

Pauley, T. K. and J. L. Waldron. 2008. The effects of trails and gated roads on movement patterns and relative 

 abundance of the federally threatened Cheat Mountain Salamander (Plethodon nettingi). Study 

 proposal to the Monongahela National Forest. 

Rizzo, A. 2002. Personal Communications with Al Rizzo, Soil Scientist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 

 17-19, 2002.

Roovers, P., K. Verheyen, M. Hermy, and H. Gulinck. 2004. Experimental trampling and vegetation recovery 

 in some forest and heathland communities. Applied Vegetation Science 7:111-118.

Sweka, J. A., and K. J. Hartman. 2001. Effects of turbidity on prey consumption and growth in brook trout 

 and implications for bioenergetics modeling. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 

 386-393. 

Trails and Wildlife Task Force. 1998. Planning trails with wildlife in mind: A handbook for trail planners. 

 Colorado State Parks, Denver, CO. 51pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Acquisition 

 of lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of the 

 Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Cheat Mountain Salamander (Plethodon nettingi) recovery plan. U.S. 

 Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final Environmental Assessment - Acquisition of lands for the Canaan 

 Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 50 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Appalachian northern flying squirrel recovery plan. West 

 Virginia Field Office, Elkins, WV. 

U.S. Fish and Wildife Service (USFWS). 2009. Cheat Mountain Salamander (Plethodon netting) 5 Year 

 Review: Summary and Evaluation. West Virginia Field Office, Elkins, WV

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 1999. Performance Report: West Virginia Endangered Animal 

 Species. Project E-1-16 (1 July 1998 through 30 June 1999).

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 2000. Performance Report: West Virginia Endangered Animal 

 Species. Project E-1-17 (1 July 1999 through 30 June 2000). 

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Cross Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-113

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE

Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses 

REFUGE NAME

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY 

The establishment of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was first approved in an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) released on May 30, 1979. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

decided to await the outcome of litigation surrounding a proposed storage hydroelectric facility before pursuing 

any further action. The approval of the refuge was affirmed by the Service in a 1994 Final Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact on July 11, 1994, which confirmed the adequacy of the 

previously-approved 1979 EIS. The refuge was officially established when the first tract of land was acquired 

on August 11, 1994. The Service has acquired lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) 

under the following authorities:

1. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)]

2. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901b]

3. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 [16 U.S.C 715d]

REFUGE PURPOSES 

The refuge was established to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and the continued availability of 

its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources to the citizens of West Virginia and the United States. Additional 

refuge purposes as derived from the legislative authorities are as follows:

(1) “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f (a)(4)); 

(2) “... for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide 

and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions.” 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986; 16 U.S.C. 3901(b)); and,

(3) “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929; 16 U.S.C. 715d).

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is “to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and 

plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans.” National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 16 U.S.C § 668dd (a)(2).

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use? 

The use is horseback riding. Although Horseback riding is not a priority public use within the Refuge System, 

it facilitates wildlife-dependent, recreational uses such as wildlife observation and photography.

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-114 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

(b) Where will these uses be conducted? 

Horseback riding is allowed on current designated roads and trails, and on any new trails as proposed in 

alternative B of the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)/Environmental Assessment (EA). See 

map B-2 for locations of trails that would permit horseback riding.

(c) When will the uses be conducted? 

Horseback riding is authorized on designated roads and trails year-round. Daily use hours are from one-hour 

before sunrise until one-hour after sunset. 

(d) How will the uses be conducted? 

Riders either travel to the refuge on horseback and enter at public entry points or transport their horse by 

vehicle and trailers and depart from designated parking areas. Information kiosks identify the roads and trails 

open for travel and explain permitted public uses. Current designated wildlife observation trails on the refuge 

are described in the trail brochure. As trail connections are made, refuge brochures and kiosks will be updated 

to show all designated trails. Parking lots and kiosks have been constructed at the trailheads of refuge trails.

Designated roads and trails also have sufficient viewing distance for riders to detect the approach of other 

users and maneuver to accommodate them. Horses must be accompanied by riders at all times and not tied to 

trees or confined. Horseback riding is typically seasonal with the majority of the use occurring during summer 

and fall months.

(e) Why are these uses being proposed? 

Horseback riding on the refuge provides increased opportunity for public participation in and access to the 

six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation). Visitors participating in horseback riding are also participating in one or more of the six 

priority public uses. Allowing this activity provides visitors with another way to view the refuge’s diverse 

biological assets. Some trails on the refuge are long (4 miles round trip) and horseback riding facilitates access 

to some of the more remote areas of the refuge. Additionally it creates direct connectivity between the refuge 

and the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area, a popular destination for equestrian use. This exposure may lead to a 

better understanding of the importance and value of the Refuge System to the environment and the American 

people. Horseback riding access has been allowed on the refuge since the refuge was established in 1994, and 

was determined compatible in a compatibility determination in 2003.

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

The resources necessary to provide and administer road and trail use will require a few additional resources 

and actions. Staff time associated with administration of this use is related to assessing the need for road and 

trail maintenance and repair, maintaining kiosks, gates, maintaining traffic counters and recording collected 

data, sign-posting roads and trails, informing the public about new refuge uses, conducting visitor use surveys, 

analyzing visitor use patterns, monitoring the effects of public uses on refuge resources and visitors, and 

providing information to the public about the use. These activities would be conducted in conjunction with 

the activities outlined in the “Wildlife Observation and Photography,” and “Environmental Education and 

Interpretation” compatibility determinations and are therefore not additive. Additional resources are necessary 

for increased monitoring for invasive species to reduce the risk of the introduction and spread of invasive plants 

from horse use, and for trail maintenance to prevent erosion from horse hooves. Recently invasive species 

monitoring has been successfully conducted by volunteer efforts along public use trails. 

Additional annual costs associated with the administration of horseback access on the refuge are estimated 

below:

 Administration, planning and consultation with refuge staff:

■ GS-13 Refuge Manager for 1 work days = $450.24

Planning and monitoring trail conditions for effects of horseback access

■ GS-12 Wildlife Biologist for 2 work days = $735.04

■ GS-7 Biological Technician for 7 work days = $1,406.16

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-115

Providing information to the public and analyzing user data

■ GS-11 Outdoor Recreation Planner for 4 work days = $1,412.16

Maintenance operations to improve trail conditions directly associated with horse damage

■ WG-10 Equipment Operator for 2 work days = $545.12

Herbicide and Supplies = $200.00

Heavy Equipment Fuel = $250.00

Grand Total Costs= $4,998.72

FY 2009 Budget Allocations:

 Employee Salaries and benefits = $624,039.53

 Fixed costs (utilities, fuel, administrative) = $211,415.2

 Base maintenance = $50,000

 Discretionary Funds (maps, printing, etc.) = $62,243.32

 Total Available Funds for FY 2009 = $947,698.08

The financial and staff resources necessary to provide and administer these uses at their current levels are 

now available. We expect the resources to continue in the future, subject to availability of appropriated funds. 

As stated above, we would need additional resources to expand and enhance these uses as described in the 

draft CCP/EA.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF USE 

Horseback riding has the potential to affect a variety of migratory and resident wildlife and their habitats when 

they are close to the travel routes. Possible negative effects include disturbing wildlife, removing or trampling 

vegetation, littering, vandalism, and entering closed areas. However, visitor use associated with this activity 

is relatively low. Out of 44 monitoring days (mostly weekends) between September 2002 and July 2003, five 

horseback riders were documented on refuge roads and trails. Anticipated levels of use are higher on Forest 

Road (FR) 80 which is more popular with horseback riders due to the connection with U.S. Forest Service 

Property. Although no direct monitoring has occurred for horse use on FR 80, incidental observations by 

refuge staff indicate that this road is one of the most popular routes on refuge land for this use.

Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality: Visitor use has the potential to contaminate refuge wetlands, and 

the Blackwater River and its tributaries, through soil sedimentation from horseback riding into streams and 

runoff of petroleum products from parking lots. Additionally horse use has been linked to increased coliform 

bacteria from fecal contamination in at least one study in wilderness areas (Derlet et al 2008). However, this 

research was conducted in areas used heavily by pack horses and in some areas by cattle. Maintaining trails 

for horse use away from water sources and minimizing the area used for stream crossings will reduce the risk 

of fecal contamination. The risk of contamination from petroleum products originating from vehicles in parking 

areas is no greater than other forms of public use permitted on the refuge. Trail maintenance may cause short 

term erosion and sedimentation in area waters. There may be additional impacts to water resources where 

new trails cross the refuge’s rivers, streams, and tributaries increasing the potential short-term and long-term 

downstream erosion and sedimentation. Additional visitor use also increases the potential for contaminating 

rivers, streams, and open water through the runoff of petroleum products from parking lots. However, refuge 

parking lots are situated away from wetlands, in well-drained areas that can absorb potential contaminants 

without harm to water quality. 

Roads and trails used for horseback riding can affect the hydrology of an area, primarily through alteration 

of drainage patterns. Bartgis and Berdine (1991) note that roads and trails can divert water from their 

original drainage patterns in Canaan Valley. This results in some drainages receiving less water and therefore 

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-116 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

becoming drier, while others are forced to carry more water resulting in accelerated erosion and increased 

water levels. Routine maintenance to redirect water and repair existing erosion is required to sustain 

horseback riding routes (Rizzo 2002, Zeedyk 2002). 

Zeedyk (2002) documented many instances in Canaan Valley where existing roads and trails were channeling 

water away from historical wetlands and in some cases causing erosion and sedimentation of bog and 

other wetland communities. These problems have profoundly if not irreversibly altered the extent, depths, 

characteristics and function of the wetlands on the Main Tract (Zeedyk 2002). The effects of these trails and 

roads were a direct result of vehicle use and road construction prior to the refuge’s acquisition of the property. 

Since then measures have been taken to remediate erosion and sedimentation issues, particularly on trails 

that are open to public access. Furthermore, since the refuge has now acquired lands within the acquisition 

boundary, it can prohibit vehicle use and road construction in certain areas so as to minimize these types of 

impacts. 

The refuge minimizes adverse effects on water resources in a variety of ways. Refuge staff routinely monitors 

roads and trails for damage and remediate problem areas as needed. Trail maintenance is conducted to help 

minimize any negative affects associated with trail use. Refuge staff ensures any potential negative effects are 

avoided or minimized. 

The refuge also conducts public outreach efforts to notify visitors of proper precautions, including carrying out 

all trash. This helps minimize risks associated with visitor use on the refuge. 

It is anticipated that horseback riding could alter drainage features of roads and trails through erosion and 

compaction, potentially affecting water quality and hydrology. These problems will be minimized because 

routes designated for this use are primarily existing logging and skid roads, and most have hardened surfaces 

or already compacted soils. These routes are located predominately on upland soils to prevent impacts to 

fragile wetland soils. Any new trails proposed for public use with horses will be evaluated similarly and 

permitted only when they meet the trail checklist criteria. New trail development and use will be evaluated in 

subsequent EAs as appropriate to evaluate the potential impacts and possible alternatives of this use.

Based on the current and projected levels of use, condition of designated routes, and minimization measures 

employed, adverse effects on water resources because of this use are expected to be minimal. 

Effects on Vegetation: Horse travel can impact plants on roads and trails by crushing them. Indirectly, horses 

can impact plants by compacting soils, thereby diminishing soil porosity, aeration and nutrient availability 

(Kuss 1986). Hammitt and Cole (1998) note compaction limits the ability of plants to revegetate affected areas. 

Plants growing in wet or moist soils are the most sensitive to disturbance from trampling effects (Kuss 1986). 

Horseback riding has caused braided roads and trails in excessively muddy trail sections (Summer 1986). 

Weaver and Dale (1978) found horse use caused a greater loss of vegetation cover, wider and deeper roads and 

trails, and greater soil compaction when compared to hiker use on meadow and forest trail conditions. Moist 

and wet soil conditions are common in Canaan Valley, particularly during spring and early summer, and can 

occur on upland roads and trails that have been incised and are channeling water. 

It is anticipated that horses will have some impacts on refuge plant communities growing on the designated 

travel routes. Designated routes for horseback riding consist of former logging roads with hardened surfaces or 

are existing trails that have been used for many years. These routes are located predominately on upland soils 

to prevent impacts to fragile wetland soils and associated plant communities. Designated routes do not have 

any known occurrences of rare plant species on their surface that would be affected by this use. Some rare 

plants have been documented in habitat adjacent to trails; however, rare plant species have not been found on 

the designated route surfaces themselves, and several routes contain exotic grasses and forbs planted during 

logging operations prior to refuge acquisition. 

Horse use may cause local impacts to plants and soils when horses are confined. Spencer (2002) observed 

that tying horses to trees damaged plants and soils. Confined horses in Canaan Valley ate the bark of nearby 

trees. This occurred at upland camps where horses were left for extended periods (Spencer 2002). According 

to Cole (1983), bark damage from tethering horses to trees can result in insect invasions and girdling that 

can ultimately kill the tree. Soil compaction and erosion at these sites was also cited as a problem, especially 

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-117

where it exposed tree roots (Cole 1983). Horses may also browse native plants if tethered for extended periods. 

Typically horses are confined to areas where camping is permitted. Since camping is prohibited on the 

refuge, long term confinement and subsequent impacts are minimized. Further, refuge stipulations to ensure 

compatibility prohibit tethering horses to trees or other vegetation to prevent damage to vegetation.

Invasive plant species may be transported into the refuge through the presence of exotic plant seeds in feed 

hay. This concern has initiated strict requirements for weed free hay in some natural areas. At Yellowstone 

National Park (CA), and Green Mountain and Fingerlakes National Forests (NY) only processed feed 

(pelletized or cubed hay) or certified “weed seed free” hay is allowed in the back-country (Zimmer 2001, 

Oliff 2002). Currently, there are no programs to provide or certify weed free hay in West Virginia or in the 

surrounding vicinity (Rayburn 2001, 2009). According to the West Virginia Agricultural Extension office, two 

plants that could be easily transported in hay, via seed, are tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) and reed canary 

grass (Phalaris arundinacea) (Rayburn 2001, 2009). The presence of reed canary grass has been documented 

on the refuge’s wet meadows and fields. However, hay cut later in the season is typically vegetative and seed 

free (Rayburn 2009).

Wells and Lauenroth (2007) found that horses have the potential to disperse a large number of seeds from a 

variety of plant types. Because horses take an average of 3 to 4 days, and up to 10 days, to eliminate the seeds 

they ingest, they represent an important vector for long distance seed dispersal from where the horses are kept 

to wildlands. 

The refuge anticipates that there will be minimal adverse impacts to plant communities on designated routes. 

Most routes designated for horse use are highly modified vehicle access roads and old logging roads where 

common grass and sedge species were planted for erosion control or where plant communities are nonexistent 

on roadbeds consisting of hard-packed graded surfaces. As weed-seed free hay is not available in West 

Virginia, horses could introduce invasive plant species to the trails and adjacent habitats on the refuge. While 

no rare plant species or communities are known to exist on the trails, some rare plants have been documented 

adjacent to trails designated for pedestrian use. Users leaving designated trails could have impacts to adjacent 

vegetation. Where impacts to vegetation are observed, the refuge would take necessary measures, such as 

remediation and trail closures, to restore plant communities on or adjacent to the affected trail.

Exposed soil and an abundance of sunlight along roads and trails provide ideal conditions for the establishment 

of invasive plant species. Invasions result from the use of foreign material to construct and maintain roads 

and trails, and from transport via visitors and vehicles traveling on roads and trails. Stout (1992) found that 

roads and trails created through emergent wetlands were being colonized by barnyard grass (Echinochloa 

crusgalli), which displaces native plants, and is a species on the state list of invasive exotic plants. Designated 

routes include old logging roads that previously have been planted with exotic cover species following logging 

operations.

Horseback riding may create bare soil conditions conducive for invasive species growth. Invasive plants, if 

allowed to establish and spread, can cause major damage to native plant assemblages and the wildlife they 

support. We will take steps to ensure that invasive species are not introduced or spread. We will monitor for 

invasive species and control or eliminate them where they occur. Key among these invasive plants species are 

reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), multiflora rose (Rosa multifora), yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), 

Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), and cattails. We will take 

proper care in cleaning and maintaining all refuge equipment (e.g., used for trail maintenance) to avoid 

introduction or transport of invasive plants, we will implement visitor outreach and education programs, and we 

will actively support state and partner initiatives and continue to work with the state to prevent introduction of 

invasive species to all habitats on the refuge. 

It is anticipated that horse use will cause minimal increases in invasive plants relative to the current vegetative 

community on designated routes. Typical hay from local sources contains plants listed as noxious weeds by 

the Mid-Atlantic Exotic Pest Plant Council including orchard grass, velvet grass, yellow sweet clover, timothy 

and others. Additionally, refuge grasslands contain many of the same species utilized as hay forage for horses, 

since refuge grasslands were acquired directly from farmers growing hay or pasturing cattle. Therefore the 

increased risk of spread of invasive species through horse use that is confined to specific hardened trails is not 

expected to greatly increase the risk of invasive species spread and establishment. 

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-118 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

The refuge minimizes adverse effects on vegetation in a variety of ways. Refuge staff routinely monitors roads 

and trails for damage and remediates problem areas as needed. Trails are monitored for invasive species 

during the growing season and invasive plants are treated mechanically or with herbicides. Trail maintenance 

is conducted to help minimize any negative affects associated with trail use. If evidence of unacceptable adverse 

impacts appears, we will reroute, curtail, or close trails to this use as deemed appropriate. Based on the 

conditions of routes and minimization measures employed, negative effects on vegetation because of this use are 

expected to be minimal.

Effects on Soils: Horses can cause physical impacts to soil surfaces. Horses may cause trail erosion by 

loosening the soil and increasing soil particle detachment under both wet and dry trail conditions (Deluca et 

al. 1998). Horses can also increase soil compaction (Weaver and Dale 1978). The Mauch Chunk-derived soil in 

Canaan Valley is particularly vulnerable to mechanical erosion when vegetation has been removed (Rizzo 2002). 

If compacted, Mauch Chunk soils can facilitate rapid water runoff that accelerates erosion down slope (Rizzo 

2002). 

While horse use would increase the impacts to soils through compaction and erosion, the refuge has attempted 

to minimize those impacts by only allowing horseback riding on roads open for vehicle use and trails modified 

through grading and proper drainage, located predominantly on upland soils. Routes designated for horseback 

riding were selected based on soil conditions that were listed as low risk for compaction and erosion as well 

as an in-field evaluation of existing conditions (Bell 2002, Rizzo 2002). Most of the designated routes are 

pre-existing roads that have been previously altered by vehicles and logging equipment, therefore soils are 

generally compacted and less susceptible to additional physical impact and mechanical erosion. There are trail 

sections where Mauch Chunk-derived soils, which have high erosion and compaction potentials, have been 

exposed through activities that occurred prior to refuge acquisition. Future trail development will allow horse 

use only if those trails meet refuge trail criteria to prevent degradation.

We will take all reasonable measures to prevent or minimize any negative effects. We will evaluate the roads 

and trails periodically to assess whether they meet established suitability criteria and to prevent degradation. 

If evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts appears, we will re-route, curtail, or close trails to this use as 

deemed appropriate. We will post and enforce refuge regulations, and establish, post, and enforce closed areas. 

Based on the information provided above and the current and projected levels of use, the refuge anticipates that 

there will be minimal adverse impacts to soils associated with horse use.

Effects on Wildlife: Disturbances vary with the wildlife species involved and the type, level, frequency, 

duration, and the time of year such activities occur. The responses of wildlife to human activities include 

avoidance or departure from the site (Owen 1973, Burger 1981, Kaiser and Fritzell 1984, Korschen et al. 

1985, Henson and Grant 1991, Kahl 1991, Klein 1993, Whittaker and Knight 1998), the use of sub-optimal 

habitat (Erwin 1980, Williams and Forbes 1980), altered behavior or habituation (Burger 1981, Korschen 

et al. 1985, Morton et al. 1989, Ward and Stehn 1989, Havera et al. 1992, Klein 1993, Whittaker and Knight 

1998), attraction (Whittaker and Knight 1998), and an increase in energy expenditure (Morton et al. 1989, 

Belanger and Bedard 1990). Mammals may become habituated to humans, making them easier targets for 

hunters. Disturbance can have other effects including causing shifts in habitat use, abandonment of habitat, and 

increased energy demands on affected wildlife (Knight and Cole 1991).

The effects of roads and trails on plants and animals are complex and not limited to trail width. Trail use can 

disturb areas outside the immediate trail corridor (Trails and Wildlife Task Force 1998, Miller et al. 2001). 

Taylor and Knight (2003) describe a 100-meter zone of disturbance for mammals adjacent to trail corridors. 

Miller et al. (1998) describe a 75-meter zone of influence where bird abundance and nesting activities (including 

nest success) were found to increase as distance from a recreational trail increased in both grassland and 

forested habitats. Bird communities in this study were apparently affected by the presence of recreational 

roads and trails, where common species (e.g., American robins) were found near trails and rare species (e.g., 

grasshopper sparrows) were found farther from trails. Songbird nest failure was also greater near trails 

(Miller et al. 1998). 

Several studies have examined the effects of recreationists on birds using shallow-water habitats adjacent 

to trails and roads through wildlife refuges and coastal habitats in the eastern United States (Burger 1981, 

Burger 1986, Klein 1993, Burger et al. 1995, Klein et al. 1995, Rodgers and Smith 1995, Rodgers and Smith 

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-119

1997, Burger and Gochfeld 1998).Overall, the existing research clearly demonstrates that disturbances from 

recreation activities have at least temporary effects on the behavior and movement of birds within a habitat or 

localized area (Burger 1981, Burger 1986, Klein 1993, Burger et al. 1995, Klein et al. 1995, Rodgers and Smith 

1997, Burger and Gochfeld 1998). The findings that were reported in these studies are summarized as follows in 

terms of visitor activity and avian response to disturbance.

Presence: Birds avoided places where people were present and when visitor activity was high (Burger, 1981; 

Klein et al., 1995; Burger and Gochfeld, 1998). Batten (1977) and Burger (1981) found that wading birds were 

extremely sensitive to disturbance in the northeastern United States. Klein (1993) found that, as the intensity 

of human disturbance increased, avoidance response by water birds increased. Conflicts arise when migratory 

birds and humans are present in the same areas (Boyle and Samson, 1985). McNeil et al. (1992) found that 

many waterfowl species avoid disturbance by feeding at night instead of during the day. Studying the effects 

of human visitation on water birds at the J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge, Klein (1989) found 

resident water birds to be less sensitive to disturbance than migrants were. Klein also found that sensitivity 

varied according to species and individuals within species. Ardeids (herons and cranes) were quite tolerant of 

people but were disturbed as they took terrestrial prey; great blue herons, tricolored herons, great egrets, and 

little blue herons were observed to be disturbed to the point of flight more than other birds. Kushlan (1978) 

found that the need of these birds to move frequently while feeding might disrupt interspecific and intraspecific 

relationships. Gutzwiller et al. (1994) found that singing behavior of some songbird species was altered by low 

levels of human intrusion. Some bird species habituate to repeated intrusion; frequently disturbed individuals 

of some species have been found to vocalize more aggressively, have higher body masses, or tend to remain in 

place longer (Cairns and McLaren 1980).

Distance: Disturbance increased with decreased distance between visitors and birds (Burger, 1986), though 

exact measurements were not reported.

Reproduction and nesting success: Disturbance may affect the reproductive fitness of males by hampering 

territory defense, male attraction and other reproductive functions of song (Arrese 1987). Disturbance, 

which leads to reduced singing activity, would make males rely more heavily on physical deterrents in 

defending territories, which are time and energy consuming (Ewald and Carpenter 1978). Flight in response 

to disturbance can lower nesting productivity and cause disease and death (Knight and Cole 1991). Miller 

et al. (1998) found bird abundance and nesting activities (including nest success) increased as distance from 

a recreational trail increased in both grassland and forested habitats. Bird communities in this study were 

apparently affected by the presence of recreational trails, where common species (i.e., American robins) were 

found near trails and more specialized species (i.e., grasshopper sparrows) were found farther from trails. Nest 

predation also was found to be greater near trails (Miller et al. 1998).

Noise: Noise caused by visitors resulted in increased levels of disturbance (Burger 1986, Klein 1993, Burger 

and Gochfeld 1998), though noise was not correlated with visitor group size (Burger and Gochfeld, 1998). 

Knight and Cole (1991) suggest recreational activities occurring simultaneously may have combined negative 

impacts on wildlife. Hammitt and Cole (1998) conclude that the frequent presence of humans in ‘wildland’ areas 

can dramatically change the normal behavior of wildlife mostly through ‘unintentional harassment.’

Seasonal sensitivities can compound the effect of disturbance on wildlife. Examples include regularly flushing 

birds during nesting or causing mammals to flee during winter months, thereby consuming large amounts of 

stored fat reserves. Hammitt and Cole (1998) note that females with young (such as white-tailed deer) are more 

likely to flee from a disturbance than those without young. Some uses, such as bird observation, are directly 

focused on viewing certain wildlife species and can cause more significant impacts during breeding season and 

winter months.

Impacts to wildlife may be indirectly caused by erosion and subsequent sedimentation of streams and vernal 

pools as a result of poorly designed trails and travel over bare soils and around drainages. Increased sediment 

loads can reduce aquatic vegetation and dissolved oxygen concentrations (Sadoway 1981). Sedimentation 

can directly kill aquatic invertebrates, affecting the success of amphibian larvae and adults (Sadoway 1981). 

Observations by refuge staff in 2002 document numerous occurrences of amphibian egg masses that failed 

after becoming coated in sediment from eroding trails and roads nearby. Bartgis and Berdine (1991) report 

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-120 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

that sedimentation was damaging habitat in Canaan Valley and could cause impacts to the rare plants, water 

quality and possibly affect habitat of the southern water shrew (Sorex palustris punctulatus), a state species 

of concern. This was a direct result of vehicle use and road construction prior to the refuge’s acquisition of the 

property. Trail work conducted since 2002 has begun to address sedimentation and erosion issues on refuge 

trails. Because trails designated for horseback riding are upland areas or locations of existing (compacted) 

logging roads, the use of horses is not expected to significantly increase erosion or sedimentation problems. 

Through proper trail maintenance and construction, trail drainage will be improved to minimize the effects of 

erosion and sedimentation on wildlife.

Short-term, localized adverse impacts to fish populations also may result from soil erosion and sedimentation 

into refuge waterways associated with this activity. Long-term adverse impacts from increased trail miles 

and trail use might pose another concern to refuge fisheries. Trails that have stream and river crossings 

would likely degrade over time with increased use and contribute to downstream sedimentation and turbidity, 

which has been found to be a stressor to brook trout (Sweka and Hartman 2001) and redside dace (Holm 

and Crossman 1986) populations that are sensitive to habitat degradation. Currently there are four stream 

crossings which are open to horse use. Two crossings have been hardened to resist the erosive effect of horse 

hooves. The refuge has constructed bridges for the other two crossings to allow horses to cross without 

impacting soils. The majority of horse use trails occur on upland soils and on old logging roads which have been 

compacted over years of use prior to refuge acquisition. The refuge will monitor stream and river crossings 

closely and remediate any damaged areas to minimize adverse impacts associated with trail use.

Anticipated impacts of horseback riding on wildlife include temporary disturbances to species using habitat 

on the trail or directly adjacent to the trail. These disturbances are likely to be short term and infrequent as 

much of the use is concentrated during weekends in the summer and fall. Use of some roads and trails may 

cause direct impacts such as mortality (e.g., crushing amphibians foraging on grassy roads and trails) to nest 

abandonment of bird species nesting on trails. Long-term impacts may include certain wildlife species avoiding 

trail corridors as a result of this use over time. 

Routes found compatible for horseback riding are located primarily in continuous tracts of northern hardwood 

forest on the refuge. Smaller, more sensitive wildlife habitat such as riparian, wetland, and grassland areas 

were avoided which reduces the potential for wildlife disturbance. Locating these trails in upland forested 

habitat spreads the disturbance over the largest habitat type on the refuge, thereby diluting the overall impact 

on refuge wildlife associated with this habitat. 

Horseback trails are not located in areas where habitats are more sensitive and under represented. This helps 

to prevent disproportionate disturbance to wildlife in these areas. To minimize adverse impacts of any future 

trails that are open to horseback riding, the refuge would use its trail/route checklist to determine whether the 

existing or new trail meets established criteria, and it would monitor effects associated with these new trails in 

the same manner that established trails are monitored. Any new trails that are open to horseback riding and 

that are not mentioned in alternative B of the draft CCP/EA will likely have to undergo additional National 

Environmental Policy Act analysis. 

West Virginia northern flying squirrels have been documented on refuge property near the end of FR 80. 

This species has recently been removed from the endangered species list. The recovery plan (USFWS 2001) 

notes that habitat modification may create a competitive advantage for the southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys 

volans), although the extent to which a logging road or trail would create conditions conducive for this are 

unknown. Some research has found northern flying squirrels occupying den sites near logging roads, skid 

trails, and on hiking trails (Ford 2002). Routes designated for these uses are pre-existing roads and trails 

some of which have been in existence for many years. No new habitat clearing is planned in this area; however, 

some vegetation clearing may be required to maintain the trail corridor. As mentioned previously, we will 

periodically evaluate these activities to determine any effects they may have. If evidence of unacceptable 

adverse impacts appears, the location(s) of activities will be curtailed or discontinued as needed. 

Based on the information provided above and the current and projected levels of use, allowing this use is not 

anticipated to significantly increase wildlife habitat fragmentation or cause significant impacts on wildlife 

through disturbance. Nearly all of the designated roads and trails have been consistently used for horseback 

riding for at least 20 years. 

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-121

Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species: There are two federally listed species known to occur on 

the refuge, and one species that has recently been de-listed. Cheat Mountain salamanders (Plethodon nettingi), 

listed as threatened, have been documented near the top of FR 80, and near the cross-country ski trails in 

that area. Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis), listed as endangered, are known to use the refuge’s forested areas 

for summer foraging and may have a summer maternity colony on refuge lands as well. The West Virginia 

northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) has been documented on refuge property near the end of 

FR 80. This species has recently been removed from the endangered species list. The refuge requested Section 

7 informal consultation with the Service’s West Virginia Field Office under the Endangered Species Act (16 

U.S.C. 1536) on all the actions in alternative B of this draft CCP/EA, including horseback riding, that could 

potentially impact listed species. This process resulted in a finding that the proposed actions are not likely to 

adversely affect the listed species or their associated habitats on the refuge. The full intra-Service Section 7 

Biological Evaluation form can be found in appendix I of this draft CCP/EA.

Cheat Mountain salamander—This species is sensitive to any habitat changes that remove a forest canopy or 

reduce soil moisture and relative humidity. Because Cheat Mountain salamanders have very specific ranges 

of tolerance for temperature and relative humidity, any activity which increases soil temperature and lowers 

relative humidity near the ground surface can have detrimental effects on salamander populations (USFWS 

1991). According to the Service (USFWS 1991), trails that receive heavy use resulting in bare trail treads could 

limit movements of Cheat Mountain salamanders and interfere with reproduction.

Cheat Mountain salamanders become more sensitive during warmer seasons. Temperatures greater than 55° 

F are considered to be when activity increases for the salamander, and this temperature is the low end of the 

recommended temperature range in which salamander surveys should be conducted (USFWS 1991). Therefore, 

ground disturbance which is limited to those times of the year when temperatures are below 55° F is not likely 

to cause direct impacts to salamander populations. Horse use occurs primarily during summer and fall when 

this species is active. However, horseback riding is not permitted on any refuge trails that are located within 

Cheat Mountain salamander habitat. 

Horseback riding is permitted on FR 80, where the salamanders have been documented. The refuge does 

not have exclusive use of the road because there is a private inholding at the top of the road, requiring an 

access easement. FR 80 has been in existence for many years, and has been open to a multitude of public uses, 

including vehicular traffic. The nearest known Cheat Mountain salamander habitat to FR 80 is 754 feet from 

the road (USFWS 2008), far more than the 300-foot buffer zone recommended in the recovery plan for this 

species (USFWS 1991). Therefore, the road and any uses on the road are not likely to adversely affect this 

species. We are not proposing any changes to current activities or land use in Cheat Mountain salamander 

habitat, so no additional adverse impacts are expected with this use. .

Indiana Bat—Indiana bats were documented on the refuge for the first time through acoustical monitoring 

conducted by the U.S. Forest Service in 2003 (Ford 2003). Indiana bats were found foraging at two locations 

in the south end of the refuge. The refuge began conducting acoustical surveys in 2005. These surveys 

have documented three likely Indiana bat observations in the same location as the 2003 survey during 2005, 

2007, and 2008. Additionally, acoustical surveys documented one new location for the species during 2007. 

Indiana bat calls have been documented from the refuge in the months of May, July, August, and September. 

However, since the use is restricted to day time hours disturbance of foraging bats is unlikely. The refuge 

will be investigating Indiana bat use in greater detail following the completion of the CCP. If habitats used 

by this species, particularly any identified roost sites, are near trails used by horseback riders, the use will 

be reevaluated for its impact. The refuge will consult with the Service’s West Virginia Field Office when any 

new information is gathered on the presence of Indiana bats or use of refuge habitats to ensure that horseback 

use will not affect the species. We will periodically evaluate this activity to determine any effects it may have. 

If evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts appears, horseback riding will be curtailed or discontinued as 

needed. 

Horseback riding along designated routes is not likely to adversely affect to threatened or endangered species. 

This use will occur primarily on existing roads and trails and on any trails that are newly-designated for 

horseback riding through the draft CCP/EA. Although Cheat Mountain salamander habitat occurs near FR 80, 

there is enough distance between the habitat and the road so that the species is not likely to be adversely 

affected by the road or any activities on the road. 

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-122 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Horseback riding on the roads and trails designated are not expected, separately or cumulatively, to constitute 

major short-term or long-term impacts. Assessment of potential future impacts was based on available 

information and current and anticipated level and pattern of use collected from surveys conducted by refuge 

staff in 2002-2003 and informal field observations since then. The current use is viewed as a manageable and 

justifiable method of travel that allows the public to discover, experience, and enjoy priority public uses on the 

refuge. Continued monitoring of the effects of horseback riding and associated human activities is necessary 

to better understand the influence of the use on refuge habitats, plant and wildlife communities, and visitors. 

Monitoring identifies any actions needed to respond to new information (adaptive management) and correct 

problems that may arise in the future. 

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

This compatibility determination will be made available for public review and comment for 45 days as an 

appendix to the draft CCP/EA for Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. 

DETERMINATION

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY 

The refuge has also developed a list of criteria for determining whether any given route would be appropriate 

for public uses, including horseback riding. These criteria would apply to current and future trails. Criteria are 

as follows:

Checklist for Existing Routes to Be Eligible for Compatibility Consideration 

(Routes must meet all criteria)

1. Route provides an opportunity to view a variety of habitats and wildlife.

2. Route is safe for the access proposed at current use levels.

3. Route requires minimal annual maintenance (i.e, waterbars, stepping stones, etc.) to ensure safe access and to 

prevent further habitat degradation.

4. Route has a low potential for fragmenting habitat or disturbing wildlife populations.

5. Based on existing soils information, less than 50% of the route’s length occupies soil types rated as high or 

very high for compaction and/or erosiveness. The route is not rated as severely limited for hiking trails based 

on the Tucker County Soil Survey.

6. Any route crossing of sensitive soils occupies the shortest possible distance. Organic soil crossings are 

minimized or eliminated.

7. Continued use of the existing route is not likely to cause further wetland alteration or degradation. There is 

low risk that hydrology, soil stability, sensitive plant communities, riparian zones, and wildlife habitats would 

be adversely affected. 

8. Route predominately occupies modifi ed substrate (graveled, compacted, or fi lled) like logging roads and rail 

grades. 

9. Route is not incised greater than 1 foot deep over 10% of its total length.

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-123

Additional Stipulations for Horseback Use:

— Refuge regulations will be posted and enforced. Closed areas will be established as needed, posted, and 

enforced. Signs necessary for visitor information, safety, and traffic control will be kept up to date. 

— Free-trailing or loose-herding of horses on trails is prohibited.

— Allowing horses to proceed in excess of a slow walk when passing in the immediate vicinity of persons on foot 

or bicycle is prohibited. Horses are not permitted to travel at any time faster than normal walking gait.

— All trail users should avoid obstructing a trail, or making an unreasonable noise or gesture, considering the 

nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct, and other factors that would govern the conduct of a reasonably 

prudent person, while horses or pack animals are passing.

— The known presence of a threatened or endangered species will preclude the use of an area until the refuge 

manager determines otherwise. 

— Camping and overnight parking are currently prohibited. Overnight parking may be authorized by special 

use permit at the end of FR 80 to facilitate visitor access to non-refuge lands.

— The refuge conducts an outreach program to promote public awareness and compliance with public use 

regulations on the refuge.

— Horseback rider group size is encouraged to be no more than 10 persons to promote public safety, reduce 

conflict with other users, promote a quality experience, and reduce wildlife disturbance. Groups larger than 

10 persons must contact the refuge office prior to visiting the trail system so the refuge can determine if a 

special use permit is needed. 

— All routes designated for public access are annually inspected for maintenance needs. Prompt action is taken 

to correct any conditions that risk public safety. Roads and trails are maintained at a level that reasonably 

accounts for safe travel. Roads are not plowed in winter.

— Routes designated for public access are monitored periodically to determine if they continue to meet the 

compatibility criteria established by the refuge. Should monitoring and evaluation of the use(s) indicate that 

the compatibility criteria are or will be compromised, appropriate action will be taken to ensure continued 

compatibility, including modifying or discontinuing the use. 

— Routine law enforcement patrols are conducted throughout the year. The patrols promote education and 

compliance with refuge regulations, monitor public use patterns and public safety, and document visitor 

interaction. 

— Potential conflicts with other public uses such as hunting, interpretation, etc. will be minimized by using 

trailhead signs and other media to inform the visitors about current public use activities as well as which 

activities are authorized in specific locations throughout the refuge. 

— This use may be restricted during the late-fall and winter when the refuge has priority, wildlife-dependent 

activities (like deer hunting) in progress. This helps ensure public safety and minimize user conflicts. 

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-124 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

JUSTIFICATION

The Service and the Refuge System have established priority uses for the public to observe wildlife and 

habitats at refuges. Horseback riding provides additional opportunities for viewing wildlife and habitats 

with relatively low levels of disturbance, facilitating many of the priority public uses. It is likely that visitors 

participating in this activity will learn more about the area’s wildlife and habitats, the refuge, and the Refuge 

System. This may lead to increased awareness of and support for each of these.

Routes designated for horseback riding are pre-existing roads and trails, most of which have been in existence 

for many years. Nearly all of the designated roads and trails have been consistently used for horseback riding 

for at least 20 years. Confining horse use to only those routes evaluated, maintained and approved for this 

activity restricts this use more than what was previously permitted by the original landowner. Most of the 

designated routes are pre-existing roads or trails that have been previously altered by vehicles and logging 

equipment, therefore soils are generally compacted and less susceptible to additional physical impact and 

mechanical erosion. These conditions directly limit the physical impact of this activity to soils, hydrology, and 

vegetation. In addition, these routes are located predominately on upland soils to prevent impacts to fragile 

wetland soils. 

Trail conditions have improved since refuge acquisition of the Main Tract in 2002 due to restoration and 

maintenance actions. Additionally, vehicles were prohibited from accessing these areas after the refuge 

acquired the property which greatly reduced impacts. The use of horses on existing designated public use 

trails will not significantly increase resource impacts over and above the other, existing public uses. Because of 

the restrictions and management of the trail system, the impact to soils and possible sedimentation of wetland 

resources will be minimized. Therefore these anticipated impacts will not affect the refuge’s ability to fulfill the 

purposes of wetland conservation established through the Emergency Wetland Resources Act (1986).Because 

trail width is narrow and trails are on established logging roads, impacts to plants will be minor and therefore 

not affect the refuge’s ability to conserve plant resources as described in the mission of the Refuge System and 

to protect the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and its resources, a founding purpose for designation of the 

refuge in the 1979 EIS. 

No horse trails are located in areas occupied by the threatened Cheat Mountain salamander. The endangered 

Indiana bat forages in the evening when this use is not permitted. There are no identified Indiana bat 

hibernacula, roosting or maternity colonies on refuge land, however, if any are discovered in the future, the 

refuge would consult with the Service’s Ecological Services Office to ensure that no adverse impacts will occur.

Trails used by horses are generally long (4 miles or greater in round trip distance) and the use of horses on 

these routes increases the public’s ability to experience the refuge by facilitating access over longer trail 

segments. Anticipated impacts of horseback riding on wildlife include temporary disturbances to species 

using habitat on the trail or directly adjacent to the trail. These disturbances are likely to be short term 

and infrequent based on seasonality of use, expected timing of use (i.e. concentrated on weekends) and 

locations where the use is permitted to occur. Horse routes occur primarily in forested habitats to help reduce 

disturbance to wildlife. Disturbance along trail corridors will impact only a fraction of the habitat available for 

wildlife on the refuge, and this disturbance will occur within the most abundant habitat type on the refuge. 

By limiting use to designated trails on a small percentage of the refuge and within the most common habitat 

type, disturbance will be limited and manageable. For this reason, disturbance effects will not prevent the 

refuge from fulfilling the establishing purposes of the Fish and Wildlife Act (1956) or the mission of the Refuge 

System for conserving, managing, restoring, and protecting wildlife resources. This use will not affect the 

refuge’s ability to fulfill its purpose under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act to serve as a sanctuary or 

management area for migratory birds, as this use will not occur on the tracts that were acquired under that 

act.

 The risk of invasive species introduction is considered low and manageable. Horse use is only permitted on 

trails with previously compacted surfaces which are less likely to erode and create new opportunities for plant 

establishment. Additionally, horse feed is typically from local sources which include the same exotic grass 

species which exist in the refuge’s managed grasslands. Most of these species are considered exotic but not 

invasive and can be controlled through regular inventory and management procedures. 

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-125

We will post and enforce refuge regulations, and establish, post, and enforce closed areas as needed. We 

also evaluate the roads and trails periodically to assess whether they meet established suitability criteria 

and to prevent degradation. If evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts appears, we will repair the trail 

through scheduled maintenance programs, or re-route, curtail, or close trails to horseback riding as deemed 

appropriate.

Conflicts between horseback riders and other users are localized and limited in time and space. Many refuge 

trails are closed to horse access to prevent user conflicts and to reduce the overall impact on the priority public 

uses. Given the size of the refuge and the miles of trail open for the various forms of public access, conflicts are 

expected to be minor.

Because of the limitations established for this activity, disturbance from horseback riding is not expected to 

greatly increase the disturbance to wildlife or habitat on the refuge relative to other permitted priority public 

use activities. Providing increased access to remote sections of refuge lands increases the public’s ability 

to learn about the refuges’ role in protecting the wetlands of Canaan Valley and managing and protecting 

wildlife species and habitat. For the reasons discussed above, this access will not affect the refuge’s ability to 

conserve wetlands or protect, manage, and restore the wildlife and plant resources, as mandated through the 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986) and the Fish and Wildlife Act (1956), or the mission of the Refuge 

System. Since public use trails do not occur on lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 

horseback riding will not affect the refuge’s ability to protect and manage migratory birds on those tracts.

We therefore conclude horseback riding will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the 

Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Refuge Manager 

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

 (Signature) (Date)

MANDATORY 10 YEAR RE-EVALUATION DATE

 

 

 (Date)

LITERATURE CITED

Arrese, P. 1987. Age, intrusion pressure and defense against floaters by territorial male Song Sparrows. 

 Animal Behavior 35:773-784.

Bartgis, R., and A. Berdine. 1991. A preliminary assessment of biological resources in the Canaan Valley of 

 West Virginia. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-126 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Batten, L. A. 1977. Sailing on reservoirs and its effects on water birds. Biological Conservation 11:49-58.

Belanger, L., and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic cost of man-induced disturbance to staging snow geese. Journal 

 of Wildlife Management 54:36.

Bell, S. 2002. National Resource Conservation Service. Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 4pp.

Boyle, S. A., and F. B. Samson. 1985. Effects of non-consumptive recreation on wildlife: A review. Wildlife 

 Society Bulletin 13:110.

Burger, J. 1981. Effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biological Conservation 21:231-241.

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United States. 

 Biological Conservation 13:123–130.

Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1998. Effects of eco-tourists on bird behavior at Loxahatchee National Wildlife 

 Refuge, Florida. Environmental Conservation 25:13–21.

Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, and L. J. Niles. 1995. Ecotourism and birds in coastal New Jersey: Contrasting 

 responses of birds, tourists, and managers. Environmental Conservation 22:56-65.

Cairns, W. E., and I. A. McLaren. 1980. Status of the piping plover on the east coast of North America. 

 American Birds 34:206-208.

Cole, D. N. 1983. Campsite conditions in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, Montana. U.S. Department of 

 Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper 

 INT-312. Ogden, UT.

Deluca, T. H., W. A. Patterson, W. A .Freimund, and D. N. Cole. 1998. Influence of llamas, horses and hikers 

 on soil erosion from established recreation trails in western Montana, USA. Environmental 

 Management 22(2):255-262.

Derlet Robert W MDhttp://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1580/PR05-05.1 - aff1#aff1, K. Ali Ger http://www.bioone.

org/doi/abs/10.1580/PR05-05.1 - aff1#aff1, John R. Richards MDhttp://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1580/

PR05-05.1 - aff1#aff1, and James R. Carlson PhD http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1580/PR05-05.1 - 

aff1#aff1. (2008) Risk Factors for Coliform Bacteria in Backcountry Lakes and Streams in the Sierra 

Nevada Mountains: A 5-Year Study. Wilderness & Environmental Medicine 19:2, 82-90

Erwin, R. M. 1980. Breeding habitat by colonially nesting water birds in 2 Mid-Atlantic U.S. regions under 

 different regimes of human disturbance. Biological Conservation 18:39-51.

Ewald, P. W., and F. L. Carpenter. 1978. Territorial responses to energy manipulations in the Anna 

 hummingbird. Oecologia 31: 277–292.

Ford, M. 2002. Personal Communication with Mark Ford, U.S. Forest Service, Parsons, WV. May 3, 2002.

Ford, M. 2003. Memorandum to Canaan Valley NWR - Acoustic bat monitoring. U.S. Department of 

 Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Parsons, WV. 1pp.

Gutzwiller, K. J., R. T. Wiedenmann, K. L. Clements, and S. H. Anderson. 1994. Effects of human intrusion on 

 song occurrence and singing consistence in subalpine birds. The Auk 111: 28–37.

Hammitt, W. E., and D. N. Cole. 1998. Wildlife Recreation: Ecology and Management (2nd edition). New York: 

 John Wiley & Sons. 361p.

Havera, S. P., L. R. Boens, M. M. Georgi, and R. T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl on Keokuk 

 Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298.

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-127

Henson, P. T., and A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding behavior. 

 Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:248-257.

Holm, E., and E. J. Crossman. 1986. A report on a 1985 attempt to resurvey areas within the Ontario 

 distribution of Clinostomus elongatus, the redside dace and to summarize previous records. 

 Unpublished report on file Fisheries Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Royal 

 Ontario Museum. 11 pages, 9 tables, 13 figs.

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. Wildlife 

 Society Bulletin 19:242-248.

Kaiser, M. S., and E. K. Fritzell. 1984. Effects of river recreationists on green-backed heron behavior. Journal 

 of Wildlife Management 48: 561-567.

Klein, M. L. 1989. Effects of high levels of Human Visitation on Foraging Waterbirds at J.N. “Ding” Darling 

 NWR, Sanibel, Florida. Final Report to USFWS. 103pp.

Klein, M. L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:31-39.

Klein, M. L., S. R. Humphrey, and H. F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution of waterbirds in 

 a wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology 9:1454-1465.

Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. Transactions of 

 the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference pp. 238-247.

Korschen, C. E., L. S. George, and W. L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a 

 Migrational staging area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:290-296.

Kushlan, J. A. 1978. Feeding ecology of wading birds. Pages 249-297 in A. Sprunt IV, J.C. Ogden, and S. 

 Winckler, eds. Wading Birds. National Audubon Society, New York, NY.

Kuss, F. R. 1986. A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation impacts. Environmental 

 Management 10:638-650.

McNeil, R., P. Drapeau, and J. D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurance and adaptive significance of nocturnal 

 habitats in waterfowl. Biological Reviews 67: 381-419.

Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 1998. Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird 

 communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169.

Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society 

 Bulletin 29(1): 124-132.

Morton, J. M., A. C. Fowler, and R. L. Kirkpatrick. 1989. Time and energy budgets of American black 

 ducks in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:401-410 (See also corrigendum in Journal 

 of Wildlife Management 54:683).

Oliff, T. 2002. Personal Communication with Tom Oliff. National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park. 

 January 4, 2002.

Owen, M. 1973. The management of grassland areas for wintering geese. Wildfowl. 24:123-130.

Pauley, T. 1991. Cheat Mountain Salamander (Plethodon nettingi) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Newton Corner, MA 

Rayburn, E. 2001. Personal Communication with Ed Rayburn, West Virginia University Agricultural 

 Extension Office. December 10, 2001.

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-128 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Rayburn, E. 2009. Personal Communication with Ed Rayburn, West Virginia University Agricultural 

 Extension Office. December 7, 2009.

Rizzo, A. 2002. Personal Communications with Al Rizzo, Soil Scientist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 

 17-19, 2002.

Rodgers, J. A., and H. T. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human 

 disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9:89–99.

Rodgers, J. A., and H. T. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from 

 human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:139–145.

Sadoway, K. L. 1986. Effects of intensive forest management on amphibians and reptiles of Vancouver Island: 

 problem analysis. Research, B. C. Ministries of Environment and Forests. IWIFR-23. Victoria, B. C.

Spencer, H. 2002. Personal communication with Harold Spencer, West Virginia Conservation Officer, Law 

 Enforcement, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 

Stout, B. M. 1992. Impact of ORV use on vegetative communities of northern Canaan Valley, West Virginia. 

 Wheeling, West Virginia, Wheeling Jesuit College: 24 pp.

Summer, R. 1986. Geomorphic impacts of horse traffic on montane landforms. Journal of Soil and Water 

 Conservation 41:126-128.

Sweka, J. A., and K. J. Hartman. 2001. Effects of turbidity on prey consumption and growth in brook trout 

 and implications for bioenergetics modeling. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 

 386-393. 

Trails and Wildlife Task Force. 1998. Planning trails with wildlife in mind: A handbook for trail planners. 

 Colorado State Parks, Denver, CO. 51pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Acquisition 

 of lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of the Interior - 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Cheat Mountain Salamander (Plethodon nettingi) recovery 

 plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final Environmental Assessment - Acquisition of lands for the Canaan 

 Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 50 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Appalachian northern flying squirrel recovery plan. West 

 Virginia Field Office, Elkins, WV.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). July 19, 2008. Survey memo, GIS data and associated information 

 related to Cheat Mountain salamander surveys at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. 

Ward, D. H., and R. A. Stehn. 1989. Response of brant and other geese to aircraft disturbance at Izembek 

 Lagoon, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Fish and Wildlife Research Center. Final 

 report to the Minerals Management Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 193 pp.

Weaver, T., and D. Dale. 1978. Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles and horses in meadows and forests. 

 Journal of Applied Ecology, 15:451-457.

Wells, F. H., and W. K. Lauenroth. 2007. The potential for horses to disperse alien plants along recreational 

 trails. Rangeland Ecology and Management 60:574-577.

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-129

Whittaker, D., and R. L. Knight. 1998. Understanding wildlife responses to humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

 26:312–317. 

Williams, G. J., and E. Forbes. 1980. The habitat and dietary preferences of dark-bellied brant geese and 

 widgeon in relation to agricultural management. Wildfowl. 31:151-157.

Zeedyke, B. 2002. Summary Report of Road Related Wetlands Impacts of the Canaan Valley NWR, Contract 

 Hydrologist: 5 pp.

Zimmer, C. 2001. Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. From National Forest Service, Green Mountain 

 and Fingerlakes National Forests, New York.

Compatibility Determination – Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-131

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE

Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses

REFUGE NAME

Canaan Valley National Fish and Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED

August 11, 1994

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY

The establishment of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was first approved in an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) released on May 30, 1979. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

decided to await the outcome of litigation surrounding a proposed storage hydroelectric facility before pursuing 

any further action. The approval of the refuge was affirmed by the Service in a 1994 Final Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact on July 11, 1994, which confirmed the adequacy of the 

previously-approved 1979 EIS. The refuge was officially established when the first tract of land was acquired 

on August 11, 1994. The Service has acquired lands for the Canaan Valley refuge under the following 

authorities:

1. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)]

2. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901b]

3. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 [16 U.S.C. 715d]

REFUGE PURPOSES

The refuge was established to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and the continued availability 

of its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources to the citizens of West Virginia and the United States (USFWS 

1979, 1994). Additional refuge purposes as derived from the legislative authorities are as follows:

(1) “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f (a)(4)); 

(2) “... for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide 

and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions.” 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986; 16 U.S.C. 3901(b)); and,

(3) “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929; 16 U.S.C. 715d).

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION 

To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for 

the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 

16 U.S.C § 668dd (a)(2).

Compatibility Determination – Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-132 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE 

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use?

The use is vehicular access to facilitate priority public uses on the refuge, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, environmental education, and interpretation 9 16 U.S.C. § 668 ee(2); 50 CFR. 

§ 25.12). These uses are described as the priority public uses of the refuge system [16 U.S.C 668dd(a)(3)(c). 

For the purpose of this determination, “vehicles” mean legally licensed cars, trucks, and motorcycles. This 

term does not include recreational all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles, which are prohibited on the refuge. 

The operation of a vehicle which does not bear valid license plates and is not properly certified, registered, or 

inspected in accordance with applicable state laws is prohibited. Vehicle use is not a priority public use but is 

necessary to facilitate refuge priority public uses.

(b) Where would the use be conducted?

Since the establishment of the refuge in 1994, the public has been allowed to operate vehicles on two roads. 

Forest Road (FR) 80 is 1.91 miles and provides vehicular access from Route 32 to U.S. Forest Service lands, 

including the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area. A-frame Road (4.79 miles on refuge) provides vehicular access to the 

northern portion of the refuge (Main Tract). This road is accessed from Highway 93. Vehicle travel is allowed 

on these two maintained roads to points where they are closed to protect refuge resources. 

Refuge roads traverse spruce-fir, mixed conifer/hardwood and northern hardwood forest habitats. Wildlife 

species occurring in the vicinity of roads include various migratory birds, turkey, white-tailed deer, ruffed 

grouse, various furbearers, reptiles, and amphibians. The threatened Cheat Mountain salamander (Plethodon 

nettingi) has been found within the forest that is traversed by FR 80. Refuge inventories have not found this 

species in the vicinity of the road, but a population is located greater than 300 feet from the road, a distance 

greater than the recommended buffer for salamander habitat protection (USFWS 1991). The recently de-listed 

West Virginia northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) has been documented on refuge property 

near the end of FR 80. 

Many unique and rare plant species occur, or are likely to occur, on the refuge. At least 26 species of plants 

found in Canaan Valley have been documented five times or less in the state of West Virginia. Also, 73 plants 

that are tracked by the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (WVDNR) as state species of concern 

have documented occurrences in Canaan Valley. Inventories have shown that some rare plants do grow near or 

directly adjacent to existing roads and trails.

(c) When would the use be conducted?

Designated roads are open year-round to vehicular access. An average of 120 inches of snow falls annually 

in Canaan Valley. No snow removal is conducted; therefore, many refuge roads become inaccessible to 

vehicles during heavy snowfall. Daily use hours are between one-hour before sunrise through one-hour 

after sunset when the refuge is open to the public. The general pattern of vehicle travel shows visitation is 

higher on weekends than weekdays. Most vehicular access occurs during the peak of fall colors starting in 

mid-September through the deer bucks-only rifle season (beginning the Monday prior to Thanksgiving and 

continuing for two consecutive weeks). Travel at night for raccoon hunting on the refuge requires a special 

use permit. Wildlife observation and photography occur year-round but observation of returning neo-tropical 

migrant birds peaks in May and June. Opportunities exist year-round for environmental education and 

interpretation.

(d) How would the use be conducted?

Vehicular access on the refuge is conducted according to applicable provisions of 50 Code of Federal 

Regulations 27.31 (“General Provisions Regarding Vehicles”) and West Virginia state law. To promote safe 

vehicle operation, to reduce the risk of vehicular collisions with other users and wildlife, and to enhance 

opportunities for wildlife observation, vehicle travel is subject to a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour. 

The roadway will be shared with other users. Vehicles must be properly licensed and registered, properly 

equipped, and legal for street travel by West Virginia law. Parking is available along refuge road shoulders on 

A-frame road, in turnouts, and at designated refuge parking lots. At the current level of use, these facilities are 

adequate to handle parking in an efficient and safe manner. 

Compatibility Determination – Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-133

Vehicular use on the refuge has not been thoroughly documented. Assessments of current conditions and use 

were made through observations by refuge staff and discussions with hunters and WVDNR Conservation 

Officers. The level of vehicle use on refuge property was monitored by refuge staff in 2002 and 2003. Out of 44 

monitoring days (mostly weekends) between September 2002 and July 2003, a total of 212 vehicles have been 

documented in refuge parking areas. This number excludes the deer rifle hunting season, which would likely 

triple the number of total vehicles (based on number of hunters on refuge property) for the monitoring period. 

Vehicle use is heaviest on south end parking lots during most of the year. During deer season vehicle use to 

access the refuge increases considerably on A Frame road.

Traffic counters have been installed at FR 80, A-frame Road, and near the Beall Tract parking lot. Additional 

traffic counters may be installed on vehicular roads as needed. The refuge checks the number of recorded 

vehicles to assess frequency and periods of use. Parking lots have been constructed at the trailheads of the 

Freeland and Beall Tracts trails and at A-frame Road. These existing roads were created for logging or other 

purposes prior to refuge acquisition. In the event that roads are closed by snow, winter visitors would have to 

park vehicles further from pedestrian routes and gain access by snow shoeing and cross-country skiing. 

A refuge officer records number of vehicles seen during patrols, types of access, user interactions, and 

potential safety concerns. Safety and information signs will be installed and maintained as necessary. Roads 

are and will be maintained in such a manner as is practical to minimize environmental effects such as erosion 

and sedimentation and to provide safe conditions for public access. Maintenance activities include roadside 

brushing, grading, cleaning ditches and culverts and adding gravel to road surfaces. 

Roads will be maintained in such a manner as is practical to: minimize environmental effects such as flooding, 

erosion, and sedimentation; and to provide safe conditions for vehicular travel and other modes of access. Safety 

and information signs will be installed and maintained as necessary. All trail head parking lots are either gated 

or blocked from unauthorized vehicle access and contain appropriate signage.

(e) Why is this use being proposed?

Vehicular use of designated roads on the refuge enhances public access and provides increased opportunity 

to participate in priority public uses. Vehicular use of refuge roads also allows enhanced opportunities for 

mobility-impaired persons to engage in priority public uses as recognized in the 1994 station management plan. 

Public vehicular access has been allowed on designated roads since refuge establishment. At the time of refuge 

acquisition, the former landowner of the Main Tract allowed vehicular access on A-frame road for public “foot 

travel, hunting, fishing, and other recreational use” (Monongahela Power Company 1994). Designated roads for 

vehicular travel provide the public with an opportunity to experience the diversity of habitats and wildlife that 

characterize the refuge without significant environmental consequences at the current level of use. The roads 

have existing hard-packed surfaces and are maintained to minimize the impact of vehicle use.

Opportunities for vehicular travel exist in upland communities on adjacent lands of the Monongahela National 

Forest and Canaan Valley Resort State Park. These public lands however, do not provide for panoramic views 

of the refuge landscape, and offer no opportunities to observe the wildlife and plant communities associated 

with the refuge’s wetland. 

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

Staff time associated with administration of this use is related to assessing the need for road maintenance and 

repair, conducting such repairs or overseeing such repairs by contracted work, maintaining associated road 

infrastructure, maintaining traffic counters and recording related data, analyzing use patterns, monitoring 

potential impacts of the use on refuge resources and visitors, and providing information to the public about the 

use.

The program is administered by the deputy refuge manager, resource impacts are monitored by the Wildlife 

Biologist, visitor use is monitored by a term refuge officer and outdoor recreation planner, and maintenance 

and repair is performed by a heavy equipment operator. Law enforcement is also provided by a refuge officer.

Compatibility Determination – Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-134 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Refuge vehicles are needed to effectively administer the use. The heavy equipment operator performs the 

maintenance and repair of refuge roads and associated structures. The refuge has heavy equipment including a 

motor grader, dump truck, bulldozer, backhoe, 4x4 farm tractor, bobcat, and front-end loader. 

The refuge staff will perform repair as necessary and feasible to the road system, however there is currently 

only one equipment operator on staff. If maintenance needs exceed the capability of refuge staffing, work will 

be contracted as possible to perform road maintenance. 

Annual costs associated with the administration of vehicular access on the refuge are estimated below:

Administration, planning and consultation with refuge staff

■ GS-13 Refuge Manager for 2 work days =$900.48

Road maintenance and repair (filling significant potholes, maintaining water bars, cleaning culverts, 

installing culverts, brush clearing) sign installation and kiosk construction and repair, cleaning and 

maintaining parking areas

■ WG-10 Equipment Operator for 10 work days = $2,725.60

Planning and monitoring road conditions and supervising staff to monitor vehicle travel and its effects 

on environment and other visitors

■ GS-11/12 Deputy Refuge Manager for 3 work days = $836.16

Law enforcement, monitoring vehicle travel and interactions with other users, visitor services, traffic 

counter maintenance/data collection, sign maintenance

■ GS-9 Park Ranger for 14 work days = $ 3,440.64

Monitoring environmental effects of vehicle travel

■ GS-12 Wildlife Biologist for 2 work days (training & inspection) = $735.04

■ GS-11 Wildlife Biologist for 5 work days (monitoring & invasive spp. control) = $1,486.40

■ GS-7 Biological Science Technician for 5 work days (monitoring and invasive 

species control) = $1,004.40

Providing information to the public and analyzing traffic counter and user data

■ GS-11 Outdoor Recreation Planner for 10 work days = $3,530.40

Motor vehicle fuel / law enforcement patrols = $300.00

Heavy equipment fuel = $350.00

Gravel and culverts for repairing wash outs = $5,500.00

Kiosk construction, repair, signs, printing maps and information = $550.00

Grand Total Estimated Costs = $21,359.12

Compatibility Determination – Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-135

FY 2009 Budget Allocations:

 Employee Salaries and benefits = $624,039.53

 Fixed costs (utilities, fuel, administrative) = $211,415.23

 Base maintenance = $50,000

 Discretionary Funds (maps, printing, etc.) = $62,243.32

 Total Available Funds for FY 2009 = $947,698.08

The financial and staff resources necessary to provide and administer this use at its current level are now 

available. We expect the resources to continue in the future, subject to availability of appropriated funds. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE

Potential long-term direct impacts of vehicle access include habitat loss, alterations to hydrology, pollution, 

soil compaction and erosion, sedimentation, wildlife disturbance due to vehicular traffic, and wildlife 

mortality (road kills) and injuries. Potential short-term direct impacts include noise and minor downstream 

sedimentation from dust and erosion. Indirect impacts include wildlife disturbance resulting from increasing 

human activities facilitated by vehicular access into wildlife habitat. A summary of potential and anticipated 

impacts to refuge resources follows:

Debrushing will be performed on an as needed basis depending on vegetative conditions along the road. 

Debrushing will be performed after August 1 to avoid disturbance to nesting birds along roadsides. Likewise, 

roadside ditches that support breeding amphibians earlier in the year typically are dry and are devoid of 

amphibians by early August. This treatment is necessary to properly maintain roads for automobile travel, 

to increase vision around curves, prevent contact of vehicles with roadside brush, allow proper grading and 

crowning of road surfaces, and enable maintenance of drainage ditches that aid in preventing road washouts. 

It is anticipated that debrushing activities will be required irregularly based on existing vegetative conditions 

along roads. 

Anticipated impacts of vehicle travel on habitat includes the permanent loss of vegetation as a result of the road 

itself, loss of road side vegetation from debrushing activities and potential fragmentation of wildlife habitat. 

Because these roads have been in existence for many years and habitat loss is confined to a narrow corridor, 

impacts to wildlife and plant species are not expected to be significant. Refuge staff will conduct surveys for 

rare plant species to ensure that no impacts will result from vehicle traffic and maintenance operations.

Effects on Soil: Roads promote soil erosion, primarily from sediment runoff following rains and during 

snowmelt. The potential for erosion increases with grade and slope on which the roads are constructed. 

A-frame Road, the longest refuge road has an approximate slope of 2.7%, which is not likely to contribute 

significantly to erosion. The road does not run parallel to waterways, so potential for direct runoff and 

sedimentation into streams is minor. FR 80 is a steeper road but is maintained several times a year to prevent 

erosion and culvert plugging. Narrowing the road to decrease total surface area available for runoff will help 

prevent future erosion and ease maintenance operations. Improvements have been made to improve water flow 

and reduce soil erosion from the road surface. 

It is anticipated that some soil erosion will occur as a result of the continued use of the designated vehicle 

routes. Maintenance operations to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation will be performed by the refuge as 

necessary. Based on current conditions and use, the designated vehicle routes are not likely to cause significant 

increases in erosion and sedimentation.

Effects on Hydrology: Roads can affect the hydrology of an area, primarily through alteration of drainage 

patterns. A number of culverts exist on A-frame Road and it crosses at least 15 intermittent and year round 

streams within the Main Tract. FR 80 crosses several drainages and channels water long distances down the 

road surface. New culverts and road construction improved drainage and erosion from historical conditions. 

The size and location of culverts that provide drainage underneath roads for feeder streams or drainage gullies 

generally prevent stream or drainage impediment. However, occasional heavy storm flows may exceed culvert 

capacity and road over wash or breaches may result. 

Compatibility Determination – Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-136 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Bill Zeedyk (2002), a contract hydrologist, evaluated the hydrological effects of A-frame Road and FR 80 and 

the ramifications for plant communities on the refuge. Some of the biggest problems with both roads and 

trails were drainage issues, where water was being channeled down the road surface for long distances. Other 

problems included improper culvert placement and design and lack of regular maintenance. Corrective actions 

have taken place prior to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) to restore hydrologic flows, protect 

plant communities, and prevent erosion. Major road repairs that have occurred on both FR 80 and A-Frame 

Road include replacement and installation of culverts to improve surface drainage. Regular road and culvert 

maintenance helps reduce erosion and sedimentation of streams and seeps. 

Effects on Invasive Species: Roads can facilitate the introduction and spread of invasive and exotic plant 

species. These invasions result from the use of foreign material to construct and maintain roads, and from 

transport via motor vehicles traveling on roads. Exposed soil and abundance of sunlight along roads provide 

ideal conditions for the establishment of many invasive species. Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) 

has been seen with greater frequency in the valley’s wet meadows and a small colony of Japanese knotweed 

(Polygonum cuspidatum) has been observed by refuge staff on Route 32. Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and 

garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) are often found along roads and power lines. Yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus) 

is a management concern in wetlands at the Canaan Valley State Park and has been found on the refuge, 

but not associated with the subject roads. Garlic mustard has been documented along A-Frame road where 

disturbance is regular from ditches and culverts. 

Areas disturbed by vehicle access in Canaan Valley are susceptible to colonization with exotic plant species. 

Stout (1992) found that trails created through emergent wetlands were being colonized by barnyard grass 

(Echinochloa crusgalli). This species is on the state list of invasive exotic plant species and has the ability 

to displace native plants. However, designated routes will not create any new routes through previously 

undisturbed plant communities and will only occur on existing upland roads.

Based on the current level of use it is anticipated that no significant increases in invasive plant species will 

result from this use. Routes designated for vehicle travel are old logging roads that have been used for decades 

prior to refuge acquisition. New maintenance operations have brought in significant quantities of limestone 

gravel which can increase the potential of invasive species spread through modification of soil chemistry. 

Imported gravel may also transport new invasive plants onto the refuge and periodic ditch cleaning may 

create conditions conducive for the establishment of invasive species. This can be mitigated partly by only 

using sandstone gravel. Unlike limestone, sandstone gravel will not materially change soil conditions through 

buffering effects that can favor exotic plant species. Therefore, we will use sandstone gravel in the future. 

Routes designated for vehicle travel will be monitored for invasive plant species annually. Refuge staff will 

implement control measures for invasive plants if they become established along vehicle routes. 

Effects on Pollution and Noise: Motor vehicles emit pollutants, create noise, and their use can disturb wildlife 

and humans. Pollutants from vehicle exhausts include hydrocarbons, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide. Such 

pollutants can negatively impact air and water quality that can have negative effects on plants, wildlife, and 

aquatic resources. The emission level of pollutants from automobiles on the Main Tract is unknown. According 

to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Canaan Valley is impaired by high concentrations 

of ozone and acid deposition from sulfur and nitrogen emissions (Vogel 2001). However, the pollutants from 

vehicles on refuge roads are likely to be more local compared to emissions from power plants in the Ohio Valley 

region. 

Noise levels from motor vehicles on the refuge have not been documented. The experience of visiting the 

refuge could be impacted by vehicle noise through the continued use of refuge roads. Wildlife may also be 

affected by vehicle noise causing animals to avoid roads or run from approaching vehicles. Noise from motor 

vehicles primarily results from the sound of tires on the gravel road surface and from metallic sounds of body 

and chassis vibration. Generally, vehicular noise is infrequently heard on the refuge roads and hiking trails. 

Depending on conditions and location, vehicles generally are audible from an estimated several hundred yards 

to perhaps a half-mile distant from the listener. Other sources of noise include vehicle traffic along Route 93, 

chainsaws from neighboring lands, and occasional military and civilian aircraft over-flights. It is anticipated 

that pollution and noise impacts from vehicle travel under the current use level will not significantly impact 

refuge resources or visitor experiences.

Compatibility Determination – Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-137

Effects on Wildlife: Roads facilitate human access into wildlife habitat. Vehicular traffic and associated human 

activity can cause disturbances to wildlife. Those disturbances vary with the wildlife species involved and the 

type, level, frequency, duration and the time of year those activities occur. For example, black bears may be 

affected by areas of high road densities but will readily cross lower traffic volume roads (Brody and Pelton 

1989). Van der Zande et al. (1980) found that roads could cause disturbance to bird species up to 600 meters 

from “quiet rural roads”. However, many bird and mammal species are commonly observed within sight of 

refuge roads. This is particularly true for Wild turkey, ruffed grouse, black bear and white-tailed deer that 

may use roads for brood habitat and movement corridors. The relatively low volume of traffic and maintenance 

operations of refuge roads compared to typical “rural roads” likely minimizes the effect of these roads on 

refuge wildlife populations.

Some portions of A-frame Road and FR 80 may have more importance as natural corridors for wildlife species. 

For example, the gap between Cabin Knob and the unnamed knob to the north that FR 80 traverses, and a 

gap located on A-frame Road near the Grant County line, may serve as natural corridors for mammals linking 

the Canaan Valley to the higher plateau habitats associated with the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area. The road 

segments in these gap areas may create greater disturbances to mammal species as a result. However, many 

mammals are nocturnal and would be utilizing this corridor when refuge roads are closed to public use traffic. 

Animals traveling within or directly adjacent to roads generally flee from vehicles although vehicles sometimes 

kill vertebrate and invertebrate species. For instance, snakes might be killed while basking on sun-warmed 

road surfaces and amphibians may be killed when crossing roads during spring migrations in April and May. 

West Virginia northern flying squirrels have been documented on refuge property near the end of FR 80. This 

species has recently been removed from the endangered species list. The recovery plan (USFWS 2001) notes 

that habitat modification may create a competitive advantage for the southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys 

volans), although no additional road clearing is planned for FR 80. Some research has found northern flying 

squirrels occupying den sites near logging roads, skid trails and on hiking trails (Ford 2002). Research on the 

refuge has found West Virginia northern flying squirrels living directly adjacent to FR 80 including a pregnant 

female. Use of the habitat adjacent to FR 80 is monitored annually by refuge staff. As mentioned previously, we 

will periodically evaluate these activities to determine any effects they may have. If evidence of unacceptable 

adverse impacts appears, the location(s) of vehicle travel will be curtailed or discontinued as needed. 

Vehicle travel is limited to the hours when the refuge is open to the public (one hour before sunrise to one 

hour after sunset). This minimize evening disturbance when mammals are most active. No known significant 

concentrations of wildlife occur near designated refuge vehicle routes. Overall, traffic patterns are considered 

relatively sporadic although there is greater use during the hunting season.

Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species: The refuge provides habitat for threatened and endangered 

species. The threatened Cheat Mountain salamander (Plethodon nettingi) uses the litter on the forest floor as 

cover and foraging areas. They are also sensitive to any habitat changes that removes forest canopy or reduces 

soil moisture and relative humidity (USFWS 1991). Because of this species’ reliance on high soil moisture and 

relative humidity, Cheat Mountain salamanders are not likely to be found on or crossing an established road 

or trail that is exposed to the heating and drying effects of the sun and wind. Cheat Mountain salamander 

populations have been confirmed at higher elevations in the southern end of the refuge and within 754 feet of 

FR 80 (USFWS 2008). This distance is far more than the 300-foot buffer zone recommended in the recovery 

plan for this species (USFWS 1991). Because this use will occur on pre-existing roads, no new habitat will be 

disturbed where the salamander is found. 

The refuge requested Section 7 informal consultation with the Service’s West Virginia Field Office under the 

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) on all the actions in alternative B of this draft CCP/Environmental 

Assessment (EA), including vehicle use, that could potentially impact listed species. This process resulted in a 

finding that the proposed actions are not likely to adversely affect any of the listed species or their associated 

habitats on the refuge. The full intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation form can be found in appendix I of 

this draft CCP/EA.

Indiana Bat—I ndiana bats were documented on the refuge for the first time through acoustical monitoring 

conducted by the U.S. Forest Service in 2003 (Ford 2003). Indiana bats were found foraging at two locations 

in the south end of the refuge. The refuge began conducting acoustical surveys in 2005. These surveys have 

Compatibility Determination – Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-138 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

documented three likely Indiana bat observations in the same location as the 2003 survey during 2005, 2007, 

and 2008. Additionally, acoustical surveys documented one new location for the species during 2007. Indiana 

bat calls have been documented from the refuge in the months of May, July, August, and September. However, 

since the use is restricted to day time hours, disturbance of foraging bats is unlikely. The refuge will be 

investigating Indiana bat use in greater detail following the completion of the CCP. If habitats used by this 

species, particularly any identified roost sites, are near roads used by vehicles, the use will be reevaluated for 

its impact. The refuge will consult with the Service’s West Virginia Field Office when any new information 

is gathered on the presence of Indiana bats or use of refuge habitats to ensure that vehicle use will not affect 

the species. We will periodically evaluate this activity to determine any effects it may have. If evidence of 

unacceptable adverse effects appears, the location(s) of activities will be curtailed or discontinued as needed. 

It is anticipated that vehicle use of the existing designated roads is not likely to adversely affect threatened or 

endangered species. The use will be confined to existing roads and no new construction or vegetation clearing 

will be permitted. Because FR 80 is an historical road used for vehicle access to the refuge and the Dolly Sods 

Wilderness area, vehicle use will not cause additional significant impacts to these species. 

User Conflicts and Safety: Roads designated for vehicle access are also designated for bicycle, horseback, 

and pedestrian travel. Conflicts between trail users are commonly reported in the literature (Chavez et al. 

1993, Watson et al. 1994, Knight and Gutzwiller1995, Ramthun 1995). Conflicts range from concerns over 

personal safety to certain user groups feeling that they should be given priority over other groups based on a 

past history or other reasons. Based on interviews with individuals and user groups, conflicts between groups 

are not significant in Canaan Valley. This is likely due to the relatively low number of users in the area, as 

compared with heavy use at conflict sites reported in the literature. Providing safe routes for wildlife-oriented 

activities is an important consideration for refuge roads. Safety considerations include ability of multiple modes 

of access to use a road without creating dangerous conditions, ability to maintain a road to allow safe use, and 

timing of various uses such as wildlife observation and hunting activities. Under the current level of use, routes 

open to vehicles are wide enough to allow multiple modes of access to occur without anticipated conflicts or 

safety concerns.

Cultural Resources: This use, as described, will not impact cultural resources.

Summary:

The 16 acres of direct habitat loss from the historical foot print of refuge roads, and any negative impacts 

resulting from the existence and maintenance of A-frame road, FR 80, or Idleman’s Run road (erosion, 

sedimentation, hydrological alteration, pollution, or wildlife disturbance) are not considered to constitute 

a significant long-term impact. These roads have been in existence for many years and wildlife has likely 

adapted to their presence. The current use is an effective and manageable method of access to the subject land, 

particularly the more remote northern end of the refuge via A-frame Road. These roads enable the public to 

discover, experience, and enjoy the refuge and participate in priority public uses. Continued monitoring of the 

impacts of vehicular access, and associated human activities, is necessary to better understand how this use 

impacts refuge habitat and wildlife resources. Monitoring helps identify and implement necessary measures to 

correct problems that may arise in the future (i.e., practice adaptive management).

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

This compatibility determination will be released concurrent with the draft CCP/EA for a 45-day public review 

and comment period. 

DETERMINATION

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

Compatibility Determination – Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-139

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY 

— Vehicle travel is restricted to refuge public use hours: Between one hour before sunrise and one hour after 

sunset.

— Signs necessary for visitor information, safety, and traffic control will be installed and maintained as 

necessary. If signage does not prevent unauthorized vehicle travel, gates will be installed as needed to 

protect refuge resources.

— The refuge will conduct an outreach program to promote public awareness and compliance with refuge public 

use regulations. 

— In order to provide for visitor safety and maintain a high-quality setting for wildlife observation, a speed 

limit of 25 miles per hour will be imposed. This speed limit will also allow the shared use of the roadway with 

other users. Regulations for road use will be posted at kiosks at major vehicle access points. 

— The provisions for vehicle travel on national wildlife refuges as contained in Title 50 Code of Federal 

Regulations, section 27.31, will be implemented including: establishing designated routes of travel that are 

conveyed to the public through signs and/or maps, assimilation of state laws and regulations governing the 

operation and use of vehicles, no operation of vehicles while under the influence of intoxicating beverages 

or controlled substances, reasonable and prudent operation, maximum speed limit, prohibition of vehicles 

producing excessive noise or visible pollutants, requirements for properly operating muffler, brakes, brake 

lights, headlight and tail lights, vehicle operators must be properly licensed, vehicles must be properly 

registered, licensed, and inspected, and vehicle operators must not obstruct the free movement of other 

vehicles.

— Vehicles must park in designated parking areas. On A-frame road, vehicles are permitted to park on the 

shoulder of the road during hunting season as long as they are not restricting vehicle flow.

— Refuge staff are able to conduct invasive species monitoring and control operations to effectively prevent the 

establishment of invasive plants along vehicle routes.

— All routes designated for public access are annually inspected for maintenance needs. Prompt action is taken 

to correct any conditions that risk public safety. Roads will be maintained at a level that reasonably accounts 

for safe vehicular travel. 

— Routes designated for public access are monitored annually to determine if they continue to be compatible. 

Biological inventories continue to provide baseline information to measure change against. Should 

monitoring and evaluation of the use indicate that the compatibility criteria are or will be exceeded, 

appropriate action will be taken to ensure continued compatibility, including modifying or discontinuing the 

use. 

— Refuge officer patrols include recording visitor numbers, vehicle numbers, visitor activities, and activity 

locations to document current and future levels of refuge use. Patrols also include the routine assessment 

of safety conditions and visitor interactions on Refuge Routes. Conditions that are risky or will risk public 

safety will be identified and appropriate action will be promptly taken to correct such conditions. 

— The refuge conducts annual assessments of visitor perceptions of refuge uses and the management of access 

routes. A visitor survey will be developed and executed upon approval. Providing for safe public use through 

proper administration and regulation, public education, and law enforcement will be essential. 

Compatibility Determination – Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-140 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

JUSTIFICATION

Anticipated impacts of vehicle travel on habitat include the permanent loss of vegetation as a result of the 

road itself, loss of road side vegetation, and potential fragmentation of wildlife habitat. These roads were 

constructed prior to the refuge’s acquisition and are being maintained to provide public and staff access to 

refuge lands. No new roads are being proposed so the impacts will be limited to the pre-existing routes. It is 

anticipated that some soil erosion will occur as a result of the continued use of the designated vehicle routes. 

Maintenance operations to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation will be performed by the refuge as necessary. 

Based on current conditions and use and the regular maintenance conducted by refuge staff, the designated 

vehicle routes are not likely to cause significant increases in erosion and sedimentation. In fact, since refuge 

acquisition, these roads have been significantly improved to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation through 

annual maintenance. Because refuge roads are not constructed on wetlands and through continued road 

maintenance, no significant effects on wetlands are expected. Therefore the use will not affect the refuge’s 

ability to fulfill the purposes established under the Emergency Wetland Resources Act (1986).

Vehicular traffic can also affect wildlife and habitat through pollution and noise. However, vehicle traffic on 

refuge roads is low and sporadic. Direct habitat loss, and any negative impacts of roads resulting from the 

existence and maintenance of A-frame road, FR 80, or Idleman’s Run road (erosion, sedimentation, hydrological 

alteration, pollution, invasive species, or wildlife disturbance) are not considered to constitute a significant longterm impact. Routes designated for vehicle travel are old logging roads that have been used for decades prior 

to refuge acquisition. Because these roads have been in existence for many years and habitat loss is confined 

to a narrow corridor and is a small fraction (.09%) of the total refuge acreage, impacts from continued use 

to wildlife and plant species are not expected to be significant. The roads are generally peripheral to refuge 

core habitat areas. Therefore the majority of refuge habitats will remain intact and unaffected by the roads’ 

presence and vehicular use. Because of the fact that vehicles are not expected to significantly affect wildlife 

populations on the refuge, this ensures that the refuge will meet its obligations as stated in the Fish and 

Wildlife Act (1956) and the mission of the Refuge System.

By utilizing sandstone gravel, rather than limestone, the refuge will reduce chances of invasive species 

establishment when conducting routine maintenance. Regular road surveys for invasive species will still 

be needed but are easily conducted (due to the linear nature of the survey area) and this is considered a 

manageable risk based on the past 5 years of refuge road surveys. Through continued survey and control 

efforts, invasive species establishment will be limited and not affect the refuge’s purpose of ensuring the 

ecological integrity of Canaan Valley (1979 EIS).

Only FR 80 occurs in areas which are occupied by threatened Cheat Mountain salamanders. However the 

nearest known Cheat Mountain salamander habitat is 754 feet from FR 80 (USFWS 2008), far more than the 

300-foot buffer recommended in the recovery plan for this species (USFWS 1991) Endangered Indiana bats 

have been found foraging nearby the road corridor. Disturbance to foraging bats will be prevented by the 

refuge specific regulations to close one hour after sunset. Any new information collected on the locations of 

foraging, roosting or maternity sites for Indiana bats will be discussed with the Service’s West Virginia Field 

Office to ensure that continued vehicle use of FR 80 will not affect this species on the refuge.

Roads designated for vehicle access are also designated for bicycle, horseback, and pedestrian travel. Based 

on interviews with individuals and user groups, conflicts between groups are not significant in Canaan Valley. 

Roads designated for vehicle use permit access to remote parts of the refuge (A-frame road) and connect the 

refuge to other public lands (FR 80). These roads are necessary to facilitate priority public uses and to meet 

other management objectives such as providing hunter access to remote areas of the refuge and to provide 

connectivity for public use between refuge and other public lands. Vehicle access will not affect the refuge’s 

Compatibility Determination – Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-141

ability to conserve the wetlands of Canaan Valley as provided in the establishing purposes of the refuge 

through the Emergency Wetland Resources Act (1986). This use will also not affect the refuge’s ability to 

protect, manage, and restore the wildlife and plant resources, as mandated through the Fish and Wildlife 

Act (1956), or the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge will still be able to meet its 

establishing purpose of protecting the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley as directed by the 1979 EIS, and 

particularly of ensuring the continued availability of refuge resources to the public. No roads occur on the 

properties acquired under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929); therefore, this use will 

not affect the refuge’s ability to conserve and manage migratory birds on these tracts. Without these roads, 

accessibility to refuge habitats would be greatly compromised.

For these reasons, vehicle use as identified in this compatibility determination is not expected to materially 

interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which 

the refuge was established. Monitoring will be conducted to ensure this use remains compatible. If significant 

impacts are found, corrective actions will be taken to protect refuge resources. 

Refuge Manager 

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

 (Signature) (Date)

MANDATORY 10 YEAR RE-EVALUATION DATE

 

 

 (Date)

 

LITERATURE CITED

Brody, A. J., and M. R. Pelton. 1989. Effects of roads on black bear movements in western North Carolina. 

 Wildlife Society Bulletin (17): 5-10.

Chavez, D.J, P.L. Winter, J.M. Baas. 1993. Recreational mountain biking: a management perspective. Journal 

 of Park and Recreation Administration. 11(3): 29-36.

Monongahela Power Company. 1994. News Release. Form 29-237. Rev. 2. 2pp.

Knight, R.L. and K. J. Gutzwiller. 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through management and 

 research. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 371 pp.

Compatibility Determination – Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
B-142 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Ramthun, R. 1995. Factors in user group conflict between hikers and mountain bikers. Leisure Sciences 

 17:159-169.

Stout, B.M. 1992. Impact of ORV use on vegetative communities of northern Canaan Valley, West Virginia. 

 Wheeling, West Virginia. 24 pp. 

Tolin, B. 2002. Personal Communication with Bill Tolin, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Elkins Field Office. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Acquisition 

 of lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of the Interior - 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Cheat Mountain Salamander Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, 

 Massachusetts. 35 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Off-road vehicle travel and impact in Canaan Valley, Tucker County, 

 West Virginia. West Virginia Field Office Special Project Report 92-2. 17pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final Environmental Assessment - Acquisition of lands for the Canaan 

 Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 50 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). July 19, 2008. Survey memo, GIS data and associated information 

 related to Cheat Mountain salamander surveys at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. 

Van Der Zande, A., Keurs, W.J., and Van Der Weijden. 1980. The impact of roads on the densities of four bird 

 species in an open field habitat-evidence of a long-distance effect. Biological Conservation 18: 299-321.

Vogel, Chris. 2001. NOAA airplane collects air quality data in Canaan Valley. National Oceanic and 

 Atmospheric Administration. Press Release.

Watson, A.E., M.J. Niccolucci and D.R. Williams. 1994. The nature of conflict between hikers and recreational 

 stock users in the John Muir Wilderness. Journal of Leisure Research 26(4): 372-385.

Zeedyk, B. 2002. Summary Report of Road Related Wetlands Impacts of the Canaan Valley refuge. 5 pp.

Compatibility Determination – Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-143

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE

Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes

REFUGE NAME

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED

August 11, 1994

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY

The establishment of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was first approved in an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) released on May 30, 1979. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

decided to await the outcome of litigation surrounding a proposed storage hydroelectric facility before pursuing 

any further action. The approval of the refuge was affirmed by the Service in a 1994 Final Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact on July 11, 1994, which confirmed the adequacy of the 

previously-approved 1979 EIS. The refuge was officially established when the first tract of land was acquired 

on August 11, 1994. The Service has acquired lands for the Canaan Valley refuge under the following 

authorities:

1. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)]

2. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901b]

3. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 [16 U.S.C. 715d]

REFUGE PURPOSES 

The refuge was established to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and the continued availability 

of its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources to the citizens of West Virginia and the United States (USFWS 

1979, 1994). Additional refuge purposes as derived from the legislative authorities are as follows:

(1) “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f (a)(4)); 

(2) “... for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide 

and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions.” 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986; 16 U.S.C. 3901(b)); and,

(3) “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929; 16 U.S.C. 715d).

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION

To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for 

the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 

16 U.S.C § 668dd(a)(2).

Compatibility Determination – Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes
B-144 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE:

(a) What is the use? Is it a priority public use?

The use is regulated trapping as part of an integrated approach to beaver management on all Service-owned 

lands within the boundary of the refuge, in accordance with laws and regulations of the United States and 

the state of West Virginia, and refuge special use permit (SUP) conditions. This use is not a priority public 

use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). Because pelts are retained by trappers and can be sold this use 

is also a refuge management economic activity as described by 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 25.12. 

National Environmental Policy Act analysis was done on this use in 2004, with the Furbearer Management and 

Trapping Environmental Assessment (EA). 

(b) Where would the use be conducted? 

The primary areas targeted for trapping would be locations where beaver flooding has caused damage or 

threatens to damage refuge resources such as flooding of riparian forest habitat (or other sensitive plant 

communities) or refuge roads and trails. Seasonal inventory of beaver activity would be conducted by refuge 

biologists to determine locations for regulated beaver trapping. A majority of the use would occur on refuge 

Tracts 50 and 100 also known as the Main Tract. Trapping would focus on the beaver ponds and corridors of 

the Blackwater River and its tributaries. Some trapping may also occur on wetland areas on or near Tract 200 

(Freeland Tract) on the refuge’s south end. 

(c) When would the use be conducted? 

The use would be conducted within the season framework set by the state of West Virginia. Typically, beaver 

trapping occurs between November 1 and March 31.

(d) How would the use be conducted? 

Beaver trapping would be conducted under a refuge SUP and would follow state regulations and seasons. 

Permits would be issued for specific areas on the refuge where trapping could resolve or prevent a management 

problem. Locations of targeted trapping efforts would be determined through monitoring of beaver activity and 

documenting locations where plant communities or other resources are being impacted through beaver flooding 

activity. A determination would be made for specific locations on the refuge indicating that beaver presence 

is out of balance with resource protection. The refuge manager would reserve the ability to control numbers 

of beaver taken in any one location, if it is desirable to remove some, but not all beaver. This may be desirable 

where beaver are causing impacts to Refuge resources, but are still valuable for wildlife observation and 

education. Removal of beaver for resource protection is authorized under 50 CFR 31.2, 31.14, and 31.16. 

Trappers would request a permit from the refuge manager before the beginning of each trapping season. 

The refuge would ensure that if the individual were a returning trapper that the appropriate paperwork was 

submitted to the refuge office. A harvest report will be required from each trapper following the close of 

trapping season and will include data about trapping effort, time span of trapping beaver, number of target 

and non-target species harvested, refuge areas trapped, and remarks on observations of wildlife and other 

noteworthy ecological information. These data can provide a basis for catch-per-unit effort and population trend 

analyses. If information were lacking for a trapper from the previous year, the SUP would not be issued.

 

Trapping zones may be instituted to reduce the potential for conflict between individual trappers. Trapping 

equipment would be supplied by the trappers and would comply with state regulations.

If public trapping did not resolve impacts to refuge resources, refuge personnel and/or refuge appointed 

contractors would be assigned to remove problem animals. This scenario could occur if locations of targeted 

beaver populations are hard to access such as in the main portion of the valley. Areas in the Main Tract can 

be difficult to access, particularly in the winter when the state-trapping season occurs. Low pelt values and 

prohibiting wheeled vehicle access may limit the interest of public trapping. 

(e) Why is the use being proposed? 

The need is to preserve and protect plant communities of special interest on the refuge, such as the relict 

boreal vegetation in the valley. These are the only plant communities on the valley floor that resemble the 

original red spruce forests and are plant communities the refuge is obligated to protect. Flooding is also a 

concern where beaver activity exists adjacent to refuge public use trails. Through this draft Comprehensive 

Compatibility Determination – Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-145

Conservation Plan (CCP)/EA, the Service intends to assess the environmental impact of regulated trapping as 

a tool for beaver management on the refuge to protect refuge plant communities and infrastructure. 

Previous owners of lands that now comprise the refuge permitted trapping beavers. Land acquired in 2002 

from Allegheny Energy has sustained beaver trapping under state regulations and contains the majority of 

beaver habitat on the refuge. The area also harbors 73 plant species listed as species of special concern by the 

state of West Virginia. These plants and plant communities have been impacted by flooding activities caused 

by beaver inhabitation. The impact of beaver activity has been documented many times in Canaan Valley 

by wetland researchers (Fortney 1975, Fortney 1997, Fortney and Rentch 2003, Snyder et al. 2006). Fortney 

(1997) concludes, “If the present population of beavers in Canaan Valley is not greatly reduced in the near 

future, a larger proportion of the swamp forests will be destroyed...”. Importantly this statement was written 

when trapping in the refuge-owned portion of the valley was permitted by the previous landowner, Allegheny 

Energy. Without trapping pressure to reduce beaver densities, increased loss of bottomland forest communities 

will continue and likely accelerate. 

Management of beaver populations on the refuge will aid in the protection of selected plant species and plant 

communities of concern. This use is being proposed to eliminate or reduce damage to refuge resources from 

beaver induced flooding. 

Furbearers are considered a renewable natural resource with cultural and economic values (Payne 1980, Andelt 

et al. 1999, Boggess et al. 1990, Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee 1996). Several human 

dimensions studies have documented trapper profiles, cultural aspects of trapping, and the socioeconomic 

role of trapping in the United States (Gentile 1987, Boggess et al. 1990, Daigle et al. 1998, Andelt et al. 1999). 

Trapping is an activity in which family members and friends often participate together and share joint 

experiences that broaden the sense of appreciation for natural resources and ecological awareness (Daigle et al. 

1998).

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

The refuge manager will provide overall administration of the program. A wildlife biologist will be required to 

evaluate beaver activity, potential, and current impacts on refuge resources. The biologist will also be required 

to evaluate trapper data and compile trapping reports. An administrative assistant is required to help process 

SUPs and enter trapping data into a database. A refuge law enforcement officer will be required to check 

refuge trappers and ensure compliance with State and refuge regulations. An outdoor recreation planner is 

responsible for public outreach related to this program. Additional funds may be required if trapping activities 

would need to be conducted by refuge staff or contract employees.

Annual costs associated with the administration of a regulated trapping program on the refuge are estimated 

below:

Planning and supervising staff to monitor the use and its effects on environment and other visitors: 

■ GS 11/12 Deputy Refuge Manager for 3 work days = $836.16

Monitoring habitat impacts from trapping activities and issuing SUP’s:

■ GS 12 Wildlife Biologist for 10 work days = $3,675.20

Providing information to the public about management trapping and compiling use data 

■ GS-11 Outdoor Recreation Planner for 2 work days = $706.08

Resource Protection, monitoring fishing activities and interactions with other users, visitor services, 

sign maintenance, litter removal

■ GS-9 Park Ranger for 10 work days = $2,457.60

Compatibility Determination – Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes
B-146 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Administrative work, permit issuing:

■ GS-5 Administrative Assistant for 5 work days = $724.80

Vehicle fuel / law enforcement patrols = $100.00

Annual program (estimated) cost: $8,499.84

FY 2009 Budget Allocations:

 Employee Salaries and benefits = $624,039.53

 Fixed costs (utilities, fuel, administrative) = $211,415.23

 Base maintenance = $50,000

 Discretionary Funds (maps, printing, etc.) = $62,243.32

 Total Available Funds for FY 2009 = $947,698.08

The financial and staff resources necessary to provide and administer this use at its current level are now 

available. We expect the resources to continue in the future, subject to availability of appropriated funds. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE

The anticipated impacts of trapping on refuge resources are detailed in the refuge’s approved 2004 EA for 

Furbearer Management and Beaver Trapping. Below is a summary of the impacts detailed in that EA. In 

general, the impacts from trapping are extremely low because of the low level of use. Over the past six years, 

an annual average of only three trappers has participated in the public trapping program. Low pelt values and 

the prohibition of vehicle access may contribute to the low public interest in this activity. We predict this level 

of use will not change in the future. This low level of use ensures that trapping remains a low-impact tool for 

achieving the refuge’s habitat management goals. 

Alternative B in the draft CCP/EA would also allow refuge personnel and/or refuge appointed contractors to 

remove problem animals when public trapping does not resolve impacts to refuge resources. This may require 

the expenditure of additional funds to conduct trapping activities by refuge staff or contract employees. Money 

spent conducting this activity would deplete funds that could be used for other refuge management activities. 

However, only when public participation (through SUP) is not adequate for resolving the beaver impact 

would the refuge manager make the decision to undertake removal operations using refuge staff or contract 

employees. The use of refuge staff or contractors will be the last choice in resolving beaver impacts to refuge 

resources, but will be available if necessary.

The primary areas targeted for trapping would be locations where beaver flooding has caused damage to 

refuge resources such as flooding of riparian forest habitat (or other sensitive plant communities) or refuge 

roads and trails. Seasonal inventory of beaver activity would be conducted by refuge biologists to determine 

locations for regulated beaver trapping. Refuge law enforcement would ensure that trappers on the refuge 

were complying with state and refuge regulations and that data submitted to the refuge is accurate. 

Designation of trapping zones may help prevent conflicts between trappers and zones are given on a first come 

first serve basis. 

In addition, identifying trapping zones would allow the refuge to concentrate trapping efforts in areas where 

management intervention is necessary to prevent resource damage. Identifying locations where specific 

trappers are permitted on the refuge will facilitate enforcement of refuge and state regulations. Zoning may 

also provide better quality trapping experiences by preventing overlap with other trappers. For example, 

an experienced trapper may prefer to trap in areas without other trappers, to teach children or other family 

members. However, if necessary, trapping effort may be concentrated or zoning eliminated to meet refuge 

resource protection goals. 

The refuge would be able to control trapping pressure through the SUP process and deny permits to trappers 

who do not comply with regulations. By administering the program under an annual SUP, the refuge manager 

Compatibility Determination – Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-147

is able to maintain a list of trappers that are available for helping with specific management needs such as 

dealing with problem areas, targeting offending beavers for removal, and assisting with wildlife and habitat 

surveys or research.

In locations where beaver are causing impacts to refuge infrastructure (roads, trails etc.) exclusionary fencing 

and water flow control devices may be used. This method may be chosen in conjunction with a regulated 

trapping program or as a way to limit damage where trapping may not be preferable. Jensen et al (2001) note 

that using larger (or oversized) culverts can reduce many beaver impacts to roads. However, it is also noted 

that other water control devices may be required in conjunction with larger culvert sizes (Jensen et al. 2001). 

A variety of beaver control structures have been created and tested including water level control devices that 

are placed within the existing dam as well as cattle fencing to exclude beaver from a particular area (Northeast 

Furbearer Resources Technical Committee 1996). The refuge will evaluate all options when considering the 

management of the beaver population to protect refuge habitats and infrastructure.

Implementation of a regulated trapping program on the refuge affords a potential mechanism to collect survey 

and monitoring information, or contribute to research on beaver (and other wildlife) occurrence, activity, 

movement, population status, and ecology. By maintaining a trained and experienced group of trappers, the 

Service can utilize their skills and local knowledge to perform or assist with valuable management or research 

functions. Trappers that participate in the refuge program would provide assistance with the implementation 

of structured management objectives, such as alleviation or reduction of wildlife damage conflicts and negative 

species interactions. Refuge trappers typically have a stake in proper habitat and wildlife conservation, and 

protection of the ecological integrity of the refuge so that their activity can continue. Accordingly, they are 

valuable assets to the refuge manager in terms of providing on-site reports concerning the fundamental status 

of habitat, wildlife, and refuge conditions.

A national program has been designed to systematically improve the welfare of animals in trapping through 

trap testing and development of best management practices (BMPs) for Trapping Furbearers in the United 

States. This is operated under the guidance of the Fur Resources Technical Subcommittee of the International 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 1998). 

As would be expected, in practicing an integrated and comprehensive approach to furbearer management, 

the refuge would cooperate with and contribute to the development and implementation of the BMPs where 

possible.

This concept of cooperation is fully in keeping with the refuge’s role as an outdoor laboratory for research 

and scientific education. Additionally, the refuge could work in cooperation with the West Virginia Trappers 

Association or other trapping organizations to produce educational information on trapping to inform the public 

on its use for management purposes. 

Non-target furbearer species could potentially be taken through this trapping program. Risk of taking species 

other than beaver will be reduced significantly as beaver sets will occur specifically around areas of beaver 

activity. Selectivity for beaver can be achieved by carefully choosing trap locations, using specific beaver 

attractants and employing trap types and trigger configurations that are unlikely to be sprung by other 

species. 

Over a 5 year period only nine muskrat and six snapping turtles have been taken as non target species during 

targeted refuge trapping efforts. According to trapper contacts, several of the snapping turtles were released 

unharmed due to the nature of the body gripping trap used which did not harm the turtles’ carapace. Due 

to the reproductive capacities, this low number of captures of snapping turtles and muskrats are considered 

insignificant in relation to maintaining their populations on refuge lands. Trapper experience and the selection 

of the appropriate trap size will reduce non-target furbearer captures (Boggess et al. 1990, Northeast 

Furbearer Resources Technical Committee 1996). In particular, river otters are protected in the state of West 

Virginia. Currently the state provides trappers with recommendations on how to prevent the accidental take 

of river otters. This information will be made available to refuge trappers to help prevent accidental take. 

The Service will continue work with the state to help prevent the accidental take of river otter on the refuge 

through trapper education. 

Compatibility Determination – Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes
B-148 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

With respect to possible negative reaction to trapping on the refuge by the visiting public, conflicts are not 

expected because trapping is generally an inconspicuous activity that occurs during winter months. It also will 

often occur in remote areas of the refuge not accessible from public use trails. The refuge will inform the public 

about its trapping program through visitor contact and educational materials. Explanation of the purposes 

for which the trapping is conducted with focus on the protection of rare plant communities can help the public 

understand the program’s necessity.

Impacts to Vegetation: Foot travel to trapping locations (beaver ponds and rivers) can have indirect impacts 

to plants by compacting soils and diminishing soil porosity, aeration and nutrient availability that affect plant 

growth and survival (Kuss 1986). Hammitt and Cole (1998) note that compaction limits the ability of plants 

to revegetate affected areas. Regularly occurring foot travel can crush plants. Rare plants with limited site 

occurrence are particularly susceptible. Many plant species considered rare in the state are found associated 

with riparian wetlands in the Canaan Valley (Bartgis and Berdine 1991). Trapping activities only occur during 

state regulated seasons which are outside the growing season for plants. Impacts are expected to be negligible 

as the number of trappers permitted is low (average of 3 per year from 2004-2009) and trapping areas are 

segregated to prevent overlap, further reducing trampling effects.

Effects on Soils: Soils can be compacted and eroded as a result of continued foot traffic. All soils associated 

with wetland habitats were rated as either high or very high in their potential for compaction (Bell 2002). 

Impacts to soils will likely be greater during the growing season due to the greater soil moisture content at 

that time of year. The Mauch Chunk-derived soil in Canaan Valley is particularly vulnerable to mechanical 

erosion when the vegetation has been removed (Rizzo 2002). If compacted, Mauch Chunk soils can facilitate 

rapid water runoff that accelerates erosion down slope (Rizzo 2002). Although foot travel did not create highly 

erosive conditions in this soil type, lug soles of hiking boots could perpetuate the problem. Impacts to soils are 

considered negligible as a result of the low number of trappers on the refuge.

Effects on Hydrology: Trails can affect the hydrology of an area, primarily through alteration of drainage 

patterns. Bartgis and Berdine (1991) note that roads and trails can divert water from their original drainage 

patterns in Canaan Valley. This can result in some drainages becoming dry while others accelerate erosion 

by being forced to carry more water. Zeedyk (2002) documented many instances in Canaan Valley where 

existing trails were channeling water away from historic wetlands and, in some cases, causing erosion and 

sedimentation of bog and other wetland communities. These problems have profoundly if not irreversibly 

altered the extent, depths, characteristics and function of the wetlands on the Main Tract (Zeedyk 2002). These 

impacts were preexisting at the time the refuge acquired the property and restoration actions have helped 

reduce the problems associated with the existing trails. Trappers are not restricted to trails and therefore will 

only use them when necessary to facilitate access to designated trapping zones. Trapper foot traffic will not 

exacerbate existing hydrologic problems due to the low number of trappers permitted on refuge land annually.

Effects on Wildlife: Trapping will be concentrated in areas surrounding beaver ponds and along riparian 

corridors. Trappers will traverse other habitats moving to and from these areas. Disturbances vary with 

the species involved and the type, level, frequency, duration and the time of year such activities occur. 

Whittaker and Knight (1998) note that wildlife response can include attraction, habituation, and avoidance. 

These responses can have negative impacts to wildlife, such as mammals becoming habituated to humans 

making them easier targets for hunters. Human induced avoidance by wildlife can prevent animals from using 

otherwise suitable habitat (Pomerantz et al. 1988).

Humans walking off trail have been shown to cause greater disturbance (greater area of influence, flush 

distance and distance moved) to wildlife than walking within trail corridors (Miller et al. 2001). Predictability 

of disturbance (on trail vs. off trail) has been cited as a major factor in impacts to wildlife. Walking off trail is 

considered less predictable to wildlife and typically more disruptive (Knight and Cole 1991, Trails and Wildlife 

Task Force 1998, Miller et al. 2001). 

Anticipated disturbances to wildlife are likely to be short term and very infrequent based on the low number 

of permits issued for trapping on the refuge. Trapping season occurs outside of the breeding season and many 

bird species are absent from the refuge during this activity. With the refuge’s ability to limit the numbers and 

locations of trappers participating in this activity, no major impacts from wildlife disturbance are likely.

Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species: The federally threatened Cheat Mountain salamander 

(Plethodon nettingi) is found on the refuge. This species is associated with high elevation forested habitat, 

Compatibility Determination – Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-149

typically with some component of red spruce (Picea rubens) and/or Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and it 

is likely they are restricted to the cooler mountain slopes and ridges. Because beaver inhabit wetland areas not 

suitable for Cheat Mountain salamanders, there will be no adverse impacts to this species.

Indiana bats (Myotis soldalis) were documented on the refuge for the first time through acoustical monitoring 

conducted by the U.S. Forest Service in 2003 (Ford 2003). Indiana bats were found foraging at two locations 

in the south end of the refuge. The refuge began conducting acoustical surveys in 2005. These surveys have 

documented three likely Indiana bat observations in the same location as the 2003 survey during 2005, 2007, 

and 2008. Additionally, acoustical surveys documented one new location for the species during 2007. Indiana 

bat calls have been documented from the refuge in the months of May, July, August, and September. However, 

since trapping is restricted to day time hours, and must comply with certain stipulations, any potential negative 

effects are expected to be minimal. We will periodically evaluate this activity to determine any effects it may 

have. In particular the use of roost trees near beaver ponds would be a concern and would be evaluated to 

determine if trapping created disturbance to roosting bats. Because trapping occurs outside the season when 

bats would be roosting on the refuge, any impacts are considered unlikely. However, if evidence of unacceptable 

adverse affects appears, the location(s) of activities will be curtailed or discontinued as needed.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

Impacts of the proposed use were evaluated in an EA and released for public review and comment for 30 days 

in 2004. Beaver conditions on the refuge have not changed substantially. This compatibility determination will 

be released for a 45-day public review and comment period as an appendix to the draft CCP/EA.

DETERMINATION

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY

The furbearer management program will be reviewed annually to assess its effectiveness and to insure and 

that wildlife populations and habitat quality are managed appropriately. In addition, the following refuge SUP 

Conditions will apply:

— Any person engaging in activities on the Canaan Valley refuge that would be defined as trapping under West 

Virginia state law must be in possession of a valid West Virginia trapping license and a valid refuge SUP. 

Trappers will present such credentials to refuge officials and law enforcement agents of United States or 

West Virginia upon their request. This permit is valid only for trapping conducted on the refuge during the 

legal trapping seasons established by the state of West Virginia and only for beaver.

— In consideration of being permitted to engage in the activity authorized under this permit at the Canaan 

Valley refuge, Permittee, being of lawful age, for himself and his personal representative, heirs, and next of 

kin, hereby releases, waives, and forever discharges the United States of America, its agents and employees, 

all for the purposes herein referred to as, Releasees, from any and every claim, demand, action or right 

of action, of whatsoever kind or nature, either in law or in equity, arising from or by reason of any bodily 

injury or personal injuries known or unknown, death and/or property damage resulting or to result from any 

injury, which may occur while engaged in the permitted activity, and covenants not to sue the Releasees, for 

any loss or damages, and any claim or damage therefore, on account of injury to the person or property or 

resulting in death of the Permittee, whether caused by the negligence of Releasees or otherwise.

— Permittee agrees to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the Releasees and each of them from any 

loss, liability, damage, or cost Releasees may incur due to the presence of Permittee in or upon the said 

property of the United States. 

— Releasor agrees that this release and waiver is intended to be as broad and inclusive as permitted by the 

laws of the state of West Virginia and that if any portion thereof is held invalid, it is agreed that the balance 

shall notwithstanding, continue in full legal force and effect.

Compatibility Determination – Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes
B-150 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

— Permittee will obey the laws of the United States and West Virginia, including those concerning trapping, 

firearms, and motor vehicles while engaged in activities connected with this permit.

— Travel by motor vehicle is restricted to established roads, and travel by snowmachine and all-terrain vehicle 

is prohibited.

— Permittee will use every feasible precaution against causing damage to refuge roads, lands, and waters. 

Permittee will report any damages as soon as possible.

— Permittee will not conduct activities in connection with this permit in any manner that would interfere with 

or cause hazards to vehicular travel or the activities of refuge visitors.

— Permittee shall not litter, start fires, or use open fires on refuge lands.

— Permittee is required to submit a completed refuge trapper report accompanying this permit to the Refuge 

manager within 30 days of the close of the West Virginia trapping season. Report forms MUST be submitted 

whether or not any trapping was conducted or any animals were captured. NOTE: Failure to submit this 

report will be grounds for denial of a refuge-trapping permit for the following season.

— Connabear Traps of size 8x8 and larger are permitted. No sizes smaller than 8x8. 

— Leg hold traps no smaller than a size 7 are permitted and only if used in a drowning set. Traps should be set 

for a hind foot capture to prevent non-target wildlife captures.

— No snares will be permitted on the refuge.

— Permittee will receive and comply with information and recommendations to avoid trapping river otter and 

all other non-target species. Only beaver may be taken.

JUSTIFICATION

Regulated trapping is recognized by the Service as an effective, legitimate, and ecologically sound wildlife 

population and habitat management method on national wildlife refuges. Furbearers are considered a 

renewable natural resource with cultural and economic values (Andelt et al 1999, Boggess et al. 1990, 

Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee 1996, Payne 1980). Trapping also allows the public 

the benefit of a renewable wildlife resource. As mentioned above and described in the approved 2004 EA for 

Furbearer Management and Beaver Trapping, trapping seasons and limits are established by the state and 

adopted by the refuge. These restrictions are designed to protect wildlife populations from over harvest. There 

is some risk of incidental trapping of non-target species (e.g., river otter).

Risk of taking species other than beaver will be reduced significantly through the conditions of the SUP and 

as described in the stipulations of this compatibility determination. Beaver sets will occur specifically around 

areas of beaver activity with trap sizes and set locations restricted by the permit to reduce non-target species 

captures. Selectivity for beaver can be achieved by carefully choosing trap locations, using specific beaver 

attractants and employing trap types and trigger configurations that are unlikely to be sprung by other 

species. In particular, risk of taking river otter will be addressed by ensuring that all trappers have access to 

the state’s recommendations on how to prevent the accidental take of river otters.

Conflicts between trappers would be minimal because of the low level of use. Any potential conflicts would 

be minimized by designating trapping zones, controlling numbers through the SUP process, or through 

the presence of law enforcement officials. Trapping occurs during winter months, a time when other visitor 

numbers are low. 

Anticipated disturbances to wildlife are likely to be short term and infrequent based on the current low level of 

use (average of 3 trappers per year between 2004 and 2009) and seasonal limitations. Sedimentation impacts 

will likely be insignificant from foot travel. Vegetation impacts will similarly be insignificant due to the limited 

number of participants and zoned locations of trapping activity. A regulated trapping program will help protect 

refuge habitats, specifically rare wetland forested and shrub swamp communities. Based on the current level of 

Compatibility Determination – Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-151

trapping, disturbance impacts to wildlife will be insignificant. Restrictions outlined in the SUP are designed to 

prevent other wildlife from being directly affected by this management activity. 

Because of the low use and established SUP restrictions the refuge will continue to meet its purposes 

established by the Fish and Wildlife Act (1956) to manage, conserve and protect fish and wildlife resources. 

This use also provides a low impact method to reduce beaver impacts to wetland plant communities which 

supports the establishing purpose for the refuge to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley (1979 

EIS) and the Emergency Wetland Resources Act (1986) by conserving wetland communities of Canaan Valley. 

Because of the limited use, low impact, and supporting role to wetland plant conservation in Canaan Valley, this 

use does not prevent the refuge from fulfilling the mission of the Refuge System by helping to conserve and 

manage fish, wildlife and plant resources. 

Trapping may occur within riparian areas within and bordering tracts acquired under the authority of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929). This use is aimed at reducing the effects of beaver flooding on rare 

wetland plant communities. By altering beaver impact, habitats which support migratory birds will also be 

altered. Other open water habitats created through flooding activities will be minimized based on location and 

therefore the migratory birds utilizing these communities will be affected. However, the habitats targeted for 

protection are some of the rarest habitats on the refuge; therefore the migratory birds tied to these habitats 

will benefit from habitat protection and management. Although open water habitats are not common on the 

refuge, they are not as limited in distribution as the plant communities the trapping program is designed to 

protect. Therefore this activity will not affect the refuge’s ability to meet the purposes to conserve and manage 

migratory birds as directed by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929). 

Trapping access is limited by terms and conditions outlined in special use permits to help minimize potential 

negative effects and maximize effective management. Allowing this use furthers the mission of the Refuge 

System, as required under 50 CFR 29.1, by meeting important management objectives to protect or enhance 

refuge ecosystems while allowing access to renewable natural resources for the benefit of the American 

public. For these reasons beaver trapping contributes to the establishing purpose of the refuge by helping 

to protect and maintain rare wetland plant communities and therefore the ecological integrity of Canaan 

Valley. Beaver trapping does not interfere with the other refuge purposes, namely the development and 

conservation of fish and wildlife resources (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)),the fulfillment of 

international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 

1986;16 U.S.C. 3901(b));, and the use as an inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds (16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act 1929)). We have determined that regulated trapping as a component of an integrated 

furbearer management program at the Canaan Valley refuge will not materially interfere with or detract from 

fulfilling the refuge purposes and the Refuge System mission.

Refuge Manager 

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

 (Signature) (Date)

MANDATORY 10 YEAR RE-EVALUATION DATE

 

 (Date)

Compatibility Determination – Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes
B-152 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

LITERATURE CITED

Andelt, W.F. , R.L. Phillips, R.H. Schmidt, and R.B. Gill. Trapping furbearers: an overview of the biological 

 and social issues surrounding a public controversy. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(1): 53-64.

Bartgis, R., and A. Berdine. 1991. A preliminary assessment of biological resources in the Canaan Valley of 

 West Virginia. The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA. 

Bell, S. 2002. Natural Resource Conservation Service. Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 4pp.

Boggess, E.K., G.R. Batcheller, R.G. Linscombe, J.W. Greer, M. Novak, S.B. Linhart, D.W. Erickson, A.W. 

 Todd, D.C. Juve, and D.A. Wade. 1990. Traps, trapping, and furbearer management. Wildlife Society 

 Technical Review 90-1, The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Daigle, J.J., R.M. Muth, R.R. Zwick, and R.J. Glass. 1998. Socio-cultural dimensions of trapping: a factor 

 analytical study of trappers in six northeastern states. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:614-625.

Ford, M. 2003. Memorandum to Canaan Valley NWR - Acoustic bat monitoring. U.S. Department of 

 Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Parsons, WV. 1pp.

Fortney, R. H., 1975. The Vegetation of Canaan Valley, West Virginia: A Taxonomic and Ecological Study. 

 Dissertation. West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Fortney, R. H. 1997. A chronology of post logging plant succession in Canaan Valley through the development 

 of a series of vegetation maps from 1945 to present. Salem-Teikyo University, West Virginia. 38 pp.

Fortney, R. H. and J. S. Rentch. 2003. Post logging era plant successional trends and geospatial vegetation 

 patterns in Canaan Valley, West Virginia, 1945 to 2000. Castanea 68(3): 317-334. 

Gentile, John R. The evolution of anti-trapping sentiment in the United States: A review and commentary. 

 Wildlife Society Bulletin (15): 490-503.

Hammitt, W. E., and D. N. Cole. 1998. Wildlife Recreation: Ecology and Management (2nd edition). New York: 

 John Wiley & Sons. 361p.

Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1991. Effects of recreational activity on wildlife in wildlands. Transactions of 

 the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference pp. 238-247.

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 1998. Best management practices for trapping 

 furbearers in the United States. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, 

 D.C.

Jensen, P.G., P.D. Curtis, and D.L. Hamelin. 2001. Habitat and structural factors influencing beaver 

 interference with highway culverts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2):654-664.

Kuss, F. R. 1986. A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation impacts. Environmental 

 Management, 10:638-650.

Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife 

 Society Bulletin 29(1): 124-132.

Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee. 1996. Trapping and Furbearer Management: 

 Perspectives from the Northeast. 33pp.

Payne, N.F. 1980. Furbearer management and trapping. Wildlife Society Bulletin 8:345-348.

Compatibility Determination – Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-153

Pomerantz, G. A., D. J. Decker, G. R. Goff, and K. G. Purdy. 1988. Assessing impact of recreation on wildlife: a 

 classification scheme. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:58-62.

Rizzo, A. 2002. Personal Communications with Al Rizzo, Soil Scientist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 

 17-19, 2002.

Snyder, C. D., J. A. Young, and B. M. Stout, III. 2006. Aquatic habitats of Canaan Valley, West Virginia: 

 diversity and environmental threats. Northeastern Naturalist 13:333-352.

Trails and Wildlife Task Force. 1998. Planning trails with wildlife in mind: A handbook for trail planners. 

 Colorado State Parks, Denver Co. 51pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Acquisition

 of lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of the Interior - 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fis h and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final Environmental Assessment - Acquisition of lands for the 

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of Interior - U.S. Fish and 

WildlifeService, Hadley, Massachusetts. 50 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Trapping Environmental Assessement. Davis, WV.

Whittaker, D., and R. L. Knight. 1998. Understanding wildlife responses to humans. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

 26:312–317. 

Zeedyk, B. 2002. Summary Report of Road Related Wetlands Impacts of the Canaan Valley refuge. 5 pp.

Compatibility Determination – Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management Purposes
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-155

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

USE

Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat

REFUGE NAME

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED

August 11, 1994

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY

The establishment of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was first approved in an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) released on May 30, 1979. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

decided to await the outcome of litigation surrounding a proposed storage hydroelectric facility before pursuing 

any further action. The approval of the refuge was affirmed by the Service in a 1994 Final Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact on July 11, 1994, which confirmed the adequacy of the 

previously-approved 1979 EIS. The refuge was officially established when the first tract of land was acquired 

on August 11, 1994. The Service has acquired lands for the Canaan Valley refuge under the following 

authorities:

1. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)]

2. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901b]

3. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 [16 U.S.C. 715d]

REFUGE PURPOSES

The refuge was established to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and the continued availability 

of its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources to the citizens of West Virginia and the United States (USFWS 

1979, 1994). Additional refuge purposes as derived from the legislative authorities are as follows:

(1) “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f (a)(4)); 

(2) “... for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide 

and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions.” 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986; 16 U.S.C. 3901(b)); and,

(3) “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929; 16 U.S.C. 715d).

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION

To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States 

for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act, 16 U.S.C § 668dd (a)(2).

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat
B-156 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use?

The use is commercial haying to manage grassland habitat for nesting obligate grassland bird species on the 

refuge. This use is not a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) under 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57). This use is also a refuge 

management economic activity as described under 50 C.F.R 25.12.

(b) Where would the use be conducted?

Haying would be permitted in designated grassland management units of the refuge. These units are 

currently:

 Freeland Tract: 40 acres

 Beall Tract: 113 acres

 Harper Tract: 52 acres

 Cortland Tract: 14 acres

 Bonner Tract: 9 acres

 Cooper Tract: 74 acres

 Orders Tract: 30 acres

The configuration of the units and the number of acres managed by haying may change from year to year.

(c) When would the use be conducted? 

Haying would occur only after grassland nesting birds have completed nesting activities. In Canaan Valley, 

this is typically in mid- to late August. Haying operations would be required to be completed (all bales removed 

from refuge property) within one month of the haying operation (mid- to late September). Haying would only 

occur on an “as needed basis” as determined by the refuge manager. Since refuge grassland management 

occurs on a three to five year rotation and fields are rotated to allow for standing grassland habitat to occur 

within a portion of managed grassland units, only a portion of refuge grasslands would be potentially available 

to haying operations on an annual basis. The refuge staff will determine which fields will require management 

on an annual basis and these fields will be available for haying operations.

(d) How would the use be conducted?

The use would be conducted by issuance of a special use permit to individuals who have the ability to complete 

haying operations within the specified time frame. Because of the commercial viability of the hay crop from 

refuge lands, operators would be solicited through open advertisement. If more than one individual responds to 

the request, the refuge will select the individual randomly. The Service will charge the permit holder the fair 

market value of the standing hay crop as authorized by 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 29.5. The funds 

received would contribute to the Service revenue sharing program with county government as described by 50 

CFR 34.3(d).

(e) Why is this use being proposed? 

This use is being proposed to facilitate refuge grassland management. By permitting haying on refuge 

grasslands, less time is required by staff equipment operators to conduct required management activities. This 

saves the refuge time and money which may be allocated to different projects. Additionally, haying removes 

vegetation from the field which is otherwise left using refuge brush hog mowing equipment. This rank cut 

vegetation builds a duff layer in the “understory” of the grassland which, over time, can make the grassland 

less suitable for target grassland nesting bird species. Periodic removal of the vegetation from the field helps 

reduce dense duff layer development and can be beneficial for nesting grassland bird species such as bobolinks 

and grasshopper sparrows (Warren and Anderson 2005).

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

The resources necessary to provide and administer this use, at the current use level, are available within 

current and anticipated refuge budgets. Staff time associated with administration of this use is related to 

assessing the need for grassland management activities, advertising and selecting an operator to conduct 

haying actions, and overseeing the project.

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-157

The deputy refuge manager will administer the program. A wildlife biologist will evaluate the need for 

grassland management annually and select the fields which will be available for haying. A park ranger/visitor 

services specialist will submit the advertisement for the haying opportunity.

Annual costs associated with the administration of haying on the refuge are estimated below:

Administration, planning and consultation with refuge staff:

■ GS-13 Refuge Manager for 1 work day = $450.24

Monitoring field conditions and bird breeding activity to select appropriate fields for grassland 

management:

■ GS-12 Wildlife Biologist for 4 work days = $1,470.08

■ GS-11 Wildlife Biologist for 2 work days= $594.56

■ GS-7 Biological Technician for 2 work days = $401.76

Outreach and education, providing information to visitors:

■ GS-11 Outdoor Recreation Planner for 1 work days = $353.04

Oversight and administration

■ GS-11/12 Deputy Refuge Manager for 7 work days = $1,951.04

Law enforcement and regulations

■ GS-9 Law Enforcement Officer for 2 work days = $491.52

Vehicle fuel = $100.00

Grand Total Estimated Costs = $5,812.24

FY 2009 Budget Allocations:

 Employee Salaries and benefits = $624,039.53

 Fixed costs (utilities, fuel, administrative) = $211,415.23

 Base maintenance = $50,000

 Discretionary Funds (maps, printing, etc.) = $62,243.32

 Total Available Funds for FY 2009 = $947,698.08

The financial and staff resources necessary to provide and administer this use at its current level are now 

available. We expect the resources to continue in the future, subject to availability of appropriated funds. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF USE

The refuge contains approximately 332 acres of managed grassland, which provides important habitat for 

grassland nesting bird species and other wildlife. All of the grassland units had been hayed and/or grazed in 

the past prior to acquisition. Many grassland nesting bird species are in decline due to habitat loss, succession, 

and habitat conversion for cultivation. Haying is one treatment method for managing grassland habitat that is 

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat
B-158 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

used on national wildlife refuges. Haying has been proven to be a successful and desirable method for habitat 

management for grassland nesting bird species at Canaan over the past 10 years.

Impacts to Wildlife: Haying involves the use of farm equipment to mow, rake, bale and transport hay in 

grassland areas. The greatest potential for disturbance to wildlife occurs during mowing. Disturbance varies 

with vegetation composition and density, habitat use, wildlife species distribution and density, and time of year. 

Birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles may be temporarily or permanently displaced, injured, or killed. 

For nesting birds, cutting would be allowed only after the nesting season grassland species is complete. This 

disturbance will be limited to the acreage deemed by the refuge staff to be available for management actions 

during any given year. 

Depending upon bird use and vegetative conditions, the acreage potentially hayed could fluctuate between 0 

and 50% of the available, refuge-managed grassland habitat annually. Typically 50% of the available grasslands 

will be left unmowed to provide dispersal and migration habitat for landbirds and foraging habitat for 

migrating and wintering raptor species. Impacts will also be temporary in nature and limited to the number 

of times equipment is required to enter the field to conduct various phases of the haying operation. Normally 

this will require four separate instances of equipment working in refuge grassland units. The time required 

for equipment to conduct necessary operations within the field will depend upon the size of the grassland unit; 

however, all fields are small enough to require only one visit per activity. 

Since haying will occur in mid- to late August, after the nesting season, there will be minimal impacts to 

wildlife. Peak nesting activity in Canaan grasslands takes place between late May and mid-June. Research 

conducted on the refuge to document nesting and fledging success in managed grasslands indicated that most 

grassland obligate birds have completed nesting activities by early August (Warren and Anderson 2005). 

Recommendations of some grassland management areas indicate that waiting until mid-July for mowing 

or haying operations is adequate, however, waiting until mid-August will help prevent impacts to double 

and triple-brooded species at Canaan such as Savannah sparrows and Eastern Meadowlarks (Warren and 

Anderson 2005). Since bird species have fledged and young mammals are mobile and capable of escaping injury, 

direct impacts will be minimal. Since haying will primarily occur in dry grassland areas, impacts to wetlands 

and reptiles and amphibians will be minimal. This activity poses little additional impact to current grassland 

management actions by refuge personnel.

Impacts to Vegetation, Soils and Hydrology: If haying operations occur in wet or moist areas, equipment 

may adversely impact vegetation and soil. However, most grassland management units occur in dry and welldrained soil types and therefore we do not expect major impacts to vegetation, soils or hydrology. The exception 

is the Freeland tract which has areas of moist soil. Haying operations in wet soil types could have greater 

impacts to soil compaction and vegetation loss than refuge operations using a brush hog due to the necessity 

of working the cut field at least twice after cutting the hay. However, no adverse soil or vegetation affects have 

been noted by refuge staff after any of the previous haying operations over the last 10 years. Typically midAugust and early September, when haying occurs, are some of the driest months of the year. Fields that have 

been saturated by rain will not be hayed until soil conditions can support the required equipment. 

Impacts to Cultural Resources: This use, as described, will not impact cultural resources. No significant 

ground (soil) disturbance will occur and all areas being considered for this use have been traditionally hayed or 

otherwise managed as grasslands for generations.

Impacts to Endangered and Threatened Species: The federally threatened Cheat Mountain salamander 

occurs in high elevation spruce and mixed spruce-northern hardwood forests and therefore will not be affected 

by this activity. The endangered Indiana bat has been documented foraging near grassland management units, 

but this species is more directly associated with the wetlands adjacent to these units. Additionally, haying 

operations will not occur at night when Indiana Bats are active. There are no known roosting or maternity sites 

for the Indiana bat on the refuge. If future documentation of these sites occur the refuge will consult with the 

Service’s Ecological Services Office to ensure that haying operations will not adversely affect this species.

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-159

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

This compatibility determination will be distributed as an appendix to the draft Comprehensive Conservation/

Environmental Assessment for a 45-day public review and comment period. 

DETERMINATION

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY

— A Special Use Permit issued by the refuge manager will be required for this activity and will include the 

stipulations below. Additional stipulations may be included depending upon annual conditions of fields and 

other refuge activities:

— Haying will occur only after field surveys have indicated that no nesting is taking place and all juvenile birds 

have fledged. Typically this will be after August 15.

— In consideration of being permitted to engage in the activity authorized under this permit at the Canaan 

Valley refuge, Permittee, being of lawful age, for himself and his personal representative, heirs, and next of 

kin, hereby releases, waives, and forever discharges the United States of America, its agents and employees, 

all for the purposes herein referred to as, Releasees, from any and every claim, demand, action or right 

of action, of whatsoever kind or nature, either in law or in equity, arising from or by reason of any bodily 

injury or personal injuries known or unknown, death and/or property damage resulting or to result from any 

injury, which may occur while engaged in the permitted activity, and covenants not to sue the Releasees, for 

any loss or damages, and any claim or damage therefore, on account of injury to the person or property or 

resulting in death of the Permittee, whether caused by the negligence of Releasees or otherwise.

— Permittee agrees to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the Releasees and each of them from any 

loss, liability, damage or cost Releasees may incur due to the presence of Permittee in or upon the said 

property of the United States. 

— Haying will only occur in identified treatment areas in grassland units. 

— Haying will not occur in wet or moist areas. Operations will be delayed until equipment use will not 

negatively impact soils or vegetation.

— Cutting and retrieval of hay can only occur during regular refuge hours of operation between one hour 

before sunrise to one hour after sunset. 

— All haying operations including removal of bails must be complete before the beginning of deer archery 

season to avoid conflicts with hunters.

— Permittee will follow access regulations specified in the special use permit.

— Vegetation and wildlife response will be monitored to determine impacts and evaluate success of the 

management action

JUSTIFICATION 

This use facilitates the management of refuge grassland habitat and is not only a reasonable method, but 

sometimes is a preferred method of managing grasslands to maintain habitat for some nesting bird species. 

Limitations on the seasonal timing of haying, number of visits to each location, and specific locations for 

this activity will ensure minimal negative effects to wildlife. Impacts would be similar if refuge personnel 

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat
B-160 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

were required to conduct this management activity. This use relieves refuge staff from these operations 

while still achieving the management goals of the grassland program. This use is proposed and managed to 

benefit grassland habitat, so negative effects on this habitat are not expected. Vegetation and grassland bird 

responses will be monitored to ensure this use remains compatible. If significant impacts are found, or haying 

operations cease to benefit the resource or become cumbersome administratively, corrective actions will be 

taken. 

Due to the timing of the haying operation, impacts to wildlife will be minimized. Since only a portion of refuge 

grasslands will be managed in a given year, other grassland habitat will be available for wildlife during 

these management actions. Overall the impacts to wildlife are considered negligible and the benefits of the 

management action improve habitat for targeted grassland obligate bird species. As such this activity will not 

interfere with the refuge’s ability to meet the purposes of the Fish and Wildlife Act (1956) to manage, conserve 

and protect wildlife resources.

One grassland unit does occur on lands acquired under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

(1929). Stipulations to prevent nest disturbance and provide un-managed grassland for dispersal and migration 

habitat reduces the impact to migratory birds to the minimum necessary to achieve the management goals of 

the haying program. Following the stipulations outlined in this compatibility determination, allowing this use 

will not affect the refuge’s ability to meet the purposes established in the Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

(1929) and, in fact, support the purposes by managing for migratory birds.

Most grassland habitat occurs in dry uplands soils. The Freeland tract is a mixture to upland and wetland soils 

which vary in their susceptibility to soil compaction and erosion depending upon the saturation of the soils from 

rainfall. Stipulations to conduct haying reduce soil and erosion impacts by requiring the sites to be dry when 

the activity is conducted. Because of the location of grassland management units and stipulations to reduce 

impacts when conditions are wet, this activity will not interfere with the refuges purpose as established by the 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986) to conserve the wetlands of Canaan Valley.

This use supports and contributes directly to the achievement of the purposes of the refuge and the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as required by 50 CFR 29.1, by contributing to the conservation, 

protection and management of wildlife (migratory birds) on refuge lands. Conducting this activity improves 

habitat for grassland bird species and does not affect the refuge’s establishing purpose to ensure the 

ecological integrity of Canaan Valley. For these reasons, commercial haying, as identified in this compatibility 

determination, is not expected to materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Refuge Manager 

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

 (Signature) (Date)

MANDATORY 10 YEAR RE-EVALUATION DATE

 

 (Date)

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-161

LITERATURE CITED

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Acquisition 

 of lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of the Interior - 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final Environmental Assessment - Acquisition of lands for the Canaan 

 Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 50 pp.

Warren, K.A. and J.T. Anderson. 2005. Grassland songbird nest-site selection and response to mowing in West 

 Virginia. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1): 285-292

Compatibility Determination – Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-163

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE

Maintenance and Use of NOAA Weather Station

REFUGE NAME

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED

August 11, 1994

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY

The establishment of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was first approved in an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) released on May 30, 1979. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

decided to await the outcome of litigation surrounding a proposed storage hydroelectric facility before pursuing 

any further action. The approval of the refuge was affirmed by the Service in a 1994 Final Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact on July 11, 1994, which confirmed the adequacy of the 

previously-approved 1979 EIS. The refuge was officially established when the first tract of land was acquired 

on August 11, 1994. The Service has acquired lands for the Canaan Valley refuge under the following 

authorities:

1. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)]

2. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901b]

3. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 [16 U.S.C. 715d]

REFUGE PURPOSES

The refuge was established to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and the continued availability 

of its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources to the citizens of West Virginia and the United States (USFWS 

1979, 1994). Additional refuge purposes as derived from the legislative authorities are as follows:

(1) “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f (a)(4)); 

(2) “... for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide 

and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions.” 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986; 16 U.S.C. 3901(b)); and,

(3) “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929; 16 U.S.C. 715d).

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION

To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for 

the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 

16 U.S.C § 668dd(a)(2). 

Compatibility Determination – Maintenance and Use of NOAA Weather Station
B-164 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use?

The use is the maintenance and use of an air quality monitoring and research site by the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This is not a priority public use (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act 1997, Public Law 105-57).

(b) Where would the use be conducted?

The use would be conducted on a 0.5 acre portion of the Beall Tract in an upland grassland field.

(c) When would the use be conducted?

The NOAA weather station was installed during FY 2000 on the Beall Tract and is a continuing use. 

(d) How would the use be conducted?

The weather station consists of a 10-meter triangular tower used for dry deposition measurements and a wet 

deposition measurement station consisting of several collectors placed on a platform.

A galvanized shelter approximately 19 feet long, 6.5 feet high, and 6 feet wide used to house instruments and 

electronic equipment will be maintained. The shelter is buried approximately 4 feet and bermed over. Power is 

supplied to the shelter via an underground power line from a power pole located adjacent to the Old Timberline 

Road.

The NOAA administrator currently stationed at the Canaan Valley Institute is responsible for coordinating 

activities with the refuge manager. The station is visited typically once a day by a NOAA administrator, staff 

person, or volunteers in order to retrieve data and reset monitoring devices. 

(e) Why is this use being proposed?

NOAA requested site access on refuge lands as the site is central in the valley and ideally situated to collect 

atmospheric data for the area. Additionally, having a stable protected site is important. This use was found 

compatible in a compatibility determination issued in 2000. 

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

The resources necessary to provide and administer this use are available within current and anticipated 

refuge budgets. Staff time associated with administration of this use is related to assessing the breeding 

bird use within the Beall tract grassland, coordinating with the NOAA scientist, and monitoring the access 

and maintenance of the site to ensure stipulations outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding and this 

compatibility determination are followed.

The program is administered by the deputy refuge manager, resource impacts are monitored by the wildlife 

biologist, and maintenance and repair operations, when necessary are performed by a heavy equipment 

operator. Law enforcement when necessary is provided by a refuge officer.

Annual costs associated with the administration of vehicular access on the refuge are estimated below:

Bi-annual maintenance of site is coordinated with refuge Equipment Operator:

■ WG-10 Equipment Operator for 1 work day = $272.56

Coordination with NOAA and administrative duties:

■ GS-11/12 Deputy Refuge Manager for 1 work days = $278.72

Compatibility Determination – Maintenance and Use of NOAA Weather Station
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-165

Law enforcement, monitoring vehicle travel and interactions with other users, visitor services:

■ GS-9 Park Ranger (LE) for 5 work days = $1,228.80 

Monitoring environmental effects:

■ GS-12 Wildlife Biologist for 1 work days (surveys and analysis) = $367.50

■ GS-7 Biological Technician for 2 work days (surveys and analysis)=$401.76

Providing information to the public 

■ GS-11 Outdoor Recreation Planner for 1 work days = $353.04

Vehicle Fuel = $50.00 

Grand Total Estimated Costs =$2,952.38

FY 2009 Budget Allocations:

 Employee Salaries and benefits = $624,039.53

 Fixed costs (utilities, fuel, administrative) = $211,415Base maintenance = $50,000

 Discretionary Funds (maps, printing, etc.) = $62,243.32

 Total Available Funds for FY 2009 = $947,698.08

The financial and staff resources necessary to provide and administer this use at its current level are now 

available. We expect the resources to continue in the future, subject to availability of appropriated funds. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE

The site is located on grassland habitat located on the Beall Tract. In the early 1900’s the site was logged, 

burned, graded, and converted for crop production and later used for hay production and grazing. Vehicle 

access to the site for the purpose of maintenance is limited to late fall/early winter in order to avoid disturbance 

to birds and other animals during breeding season. Because of the limited vehicle access and the time of year 

when vehicle access occurs, we do not anticipate adverse impacts from this use on threatened and endangered 

species, or on any other wildlife that use this habitat. 

Disturbance to the site is limited because it is mostly accessed by foot, once a day by one person. Therefore we 

do not anticipate any adverse impacts to soils, vegetation, or hydrology because of the infrequency of use and 

the limited number of people accessing the site. 

Since the installation of equipment and use of the facility by NOAA in 2000, breeding bird surveys have been 

conducted in the Beall grassland. Results indicate that aside from the immediate loss of habitat from the 

structures themselves, bird use of the area has remained steady and consistent. Banding research conducted 

collaboratively with the U.S. Forest Service Experimental Forest Research Unit has found that grasshopper 

sparrows are returning to the same area of the field each year. Breeding density has not changed significantly 

and in fact recent grassland management has encouraged use by Henslow’s sparrows, a rare grassland obligate 

breeder. These facts indicate that under current conditions and use the NOAA weather station does not 

significantly affect the grassland management program or use of the grassland by migratory birds.

A consultation with regional archeologists John Wilson was completed and no impacts to archeological or 

historical sites are anticipated.

Compatibility Determination – Maintenance and Use of NOAA Weather Station
B-166 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

This compatibility determination will be released as an appendix to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan/

Environmental Assessment for a 45-day public review and comment period. 

DETERMINATION

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY

— To prevent migratory bird collisions, no lights will be placed on the tower.

— Wet and dry deposition equipment will be strategically located to avoid aesthetical impacts.

— Daily site access will be by foot only. 

— Occasional vehicle access is permitted for the purpose of maintenance and is limited to late fall/early winter.

— No new structures shall be permitted at the site. Instruments, antenna, and other devices that are or can be 

affixed to existing infrastructu re will be permitted following review by refuge manager.

— Refuge requires an annual report submitted to the refuge manager detailing the information collected at 

the weather station. Information should include monthly summaries of measurements taken (i.e., monthly 

rainfall, precipitation acidity, temperatures etc.). 

— A Memorandum of Understanding was established to fulfill the agreements between the Service and 

NOAA. This agreement will be updated as necessary to ensure the activity remains compatible with refuge 

purposes.

JUSTIFICATION

The maintenance of the NOAA air quality monitoring and research site will result in negligible impacts to 

wildlife and will provide important climate data. This information will be useful in determining the impacts of 

air and waterborne pollutants on the ecological communities in Canaan Valley and the mid-Atlantic Highlands 

and will likely be important as the refuge addresses climate change impacts to refuge habitats. Information 

generated by the NOAA research station has been useful for reports generated by the refuge and other 

research partners requiring comprehensive atmospheric data.

To protect sensitive species, maintenance operations requiring vehicle access are limited to late fall/early 

winter, avoiding disturbance during breeding season. Disturbance to the site is limited to foot traffic and 

the site is typically accessed only once per day by one person. Monitoring data on area bird populations has 

shown no changes in breeding density or habitat use associated with this activity. In addition, the refuge has 

established a Memorandum of Understanding with NOAA to ensure wildlife species and their habitat are 

protected. 

Compatibility Determination – Maintenance and Use of NOAA Weather Station
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-167

Because of the limited access and restrictions on maintenance operations this use will not affect the refuge’s 

ability to protect, conserve and manage wildlife and their habitats (grassland species) as directed by the Fish 

and Wildlife Act (1956) and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. This site is not located on 

tracts purchased under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929) therefore the refuge will 

not be affected in meeting its mandates to conserve and manage for migratory birds on these tracts. The 

location of the site is an upland grassland field which prevents impacts to wetland resources. Therefore this use 

will not affect the refuge’s purpose to conserve the wetlands of Canaan Valley as directed by the Emergency 

Wetland Resources Act. The establishing purpose of the refuge to protect the ecological integrity of Canaan 

Valley will not be affected by the minimal maintenance and access required to continue the NOAA operation on 

the Beall Tract. For these reasons, we have determined that this activity will not materially interfere with or 

detract from fulfilling the refuge purposes and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission.

Refuge Manager 

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

 (Signature) (Date)

MANDATORY 10 YEAR RE-EVALUATION DATE

 

 

 (Date)

LITERATURE CITED

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Acquisition 

 of lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of the Interior - 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final Environmental Assessment - Acquisition of lands for the Canaan 

 Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 50 pp.

Compatibility Determination – Maintenance and Use of NOAA Weather Station
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-169

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

USE

Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel

REFUGE NAME

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED

August 11, 1994

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY

The establishment of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was first approved in an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) released on May 30, 1979. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

decided to await the outcome of litigation surrounding a proposed storage hydroelectric facility before pursuing 

any further action. The approval of the refuge was affirmed by the Service in a 1994 Final Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact on July 11, 1994, which confirmed the adequacy of the 

previously-approved 1979 EIS. The refuge was officially established when the first tract of land was acquired 

on August 11, 1994. The Service has acquired lands for the Canaan Valley refuge under the following 

authorities:

1. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)]

2. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901b]

3. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 [16 U.S.C. 715d]

REFUGE PURPOSES 

The refuge was established to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and the continued availability 

of its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources to the citizens of West Virginia and the United States (USFWS 

1979, 1994). Additional refuge purposes as derived from the legislative authorities are as follows:

(1) “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f (a)(4)); 

(2) “... for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide 

and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions.” 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986; 16 U.S.C. 3901(b)); and,

(3) “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929; 16 U.S.C. 715d).

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION

[T]o administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for 

the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 

16 U.S.C § 668dd (a)(2).

Compatibility Determination – Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel
B-170 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

DESCRIPTION OF USE

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use?

The use is research conducted by non-Service personnel. Research conducted by non-Service personnel is 

not a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57).

(b) Where would the use be conducted?

The location of the research will vary depending on the individual research project that is being conducted. 

The entire refuge may be made available for scientific research. An individual research project is usually 

limited to a particular habitat type, plant, or wildlife species. On occasion research projects will encompass 

an assemblage of habitat types, plants, or wildlife, or may span more than one refuge or include lands outside 

the refuge. The research location will be limited to those areas of the refuge that are absolutely necessary 

to conduct the research project. The refuge may limit areas available to research as necessary to ensure the 

protection of trust resources or reduce conflict with other compatible refuge uses. Access to study locations will 

be identified by refuge staff.

(c) When would the use be conducted? 

The timing of the research will depend entirely on the individual research project’s approved design. Scientific 

research would be allowed to occur on the refuge throughout the year. An individual research project could be 

short term in design, requiring one or two visits over the course of a few days. Other research projects could be 

multiple year studies that require daily visits to the study site. The timing of each individual research project 

will be limited to the minimum required to complete the project. If a research project occurs during the refuge 

hunting season, special precautions will be required and enforced to ensure the researchers’ health and safety 

and so that conflicts with a priority public use (hunting) will be minimized or eliminated.

(d) How would the use be conducted? 

The methods of the research will depend entirely on the individual research project that is conducted. The 

methods of each research project will be reviewed and scrutinized before it will be allowed to occur on the 

refuge. No research project will be allowed to occur if it does not have an approved scientific method, if it 

negatively impacts endangered species, migratory birds, other refuge trust resources, or if it compromises 

public health and safety. A research proposal form will be distributed to parties interested in conducting 

research on the refuge.

(e) Why is this use being proposed? 

Research by non-Service personnel is conducted by colleges, universities, federal, state, and local agencienongovernmental organizations, and qualified members of the general public to further the understanding of the 

natural environment and to improve the management of the refuge’s natural resources. Much of the information 

generated by the research is applicable to management on and near the refuge. In many cases research by 

non-Service personnel ensures the perception of un-biased and objective information gathering which can be 

important when using the research to develop management recommendations for politically sensitive issues. 

Additionally, universities and other federal partners can access equipment and facilities unavailable to refuge 

staff for analysis of data or biological samples.

The Service will encourage and support research and management studies on refuge lands that will improve 

and strengthen natural resource management decisions. The refuge manager will encourage and seek 

research relative to approved refuge objectives that clearly improves land management and promotes adaptive 

management. Priority research addresses information that will better manage the nation’s biological resources 

and is generally considered important to: agencies of the Department of Interior; the Service; the National 

Wildlife Refuge System; and state fish and game agencies, and that addresses important management issues or 

demonstrates techniques for management of species and/or habitats.

The refuge will also consider research for other purposes which may not be directly related to refuge-specific 

objectives, but contribute to the broader enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and management of native 

populations of fish, wildlife and plants, and their natural diversity within the region or flyway. 

Compatibility Determination – Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-171

The refuge will maintain a list of research needs that will be provided to prospective researchers or 

organizations upon request. Refuge support of research directly related to refuge objectives may take the form 

of funding, in-kind services such as housing or use of other facilities, direct staff assistance with the project 

in the form of data collection, provision of historical records, conducting management treatments, or other 

assistance as appropriate.

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

The bulk of the cost for research is incurred in staff time to review research proposals, coordinate with 

researchers and write special use permits (SUP). In some cases, a research project may only require one day 

of staff time to write a SUP. In other cases, a research project may take an accumulation of weeks, as the 

refuge biologist must coordinate with students and advisors and accompany researchers on site visits. Because 

research conducted on the refuge is not constant, there may be fiscal years when little if any time is spent on 

managing outside research projects by refuge staff. However, over the last 10 years the refuge has typically 

hosted at least one outside research project on the refuge requiring an estimated three weeks of staff time 

support. This support includes review of the proposal by the refuge manager and biologist, consultation and 

coordination with principal researcher and field staff, issuance of SUP, review of progress reports and other 

daily operational communications.

Annual costs associated with the administration of permitting research by non-service personnel are estimated 

below:

Refuge Manager (GS 13): Review of research proposals, administration and consultation with refuge 

staff – 5 days = $1,360.00

Refuge Biologist (GS-12): Review of research proposals, administrative work, coordination with 

principal researcher and field crew, project monitoring and review – 2 weeks = $2,433.00

Refuge Biologist (GS-11): Administrative work, technical assistance, and support products – 5 days = 

$960.00

Equipment Operator (WG-10): Maintenance of housing facilities, coordination with field crew – 5 days 

$1,362.80

Grand Total Estimated Costs = $18,355.80

FY 2009 Budget Allocations:

 Employee Salaries and benefits = $624,039.53

 Fixed costs (utilities, fuel, administrative) = $211,415.23

 Base maintenance = $50,000

 Discretionary Funds (maps, printing, etc.) = $62,243.32

 Total Available Funds for FY 2009 = $947,698.08

Based on existing refuge expenditures for habitat management, funding is adequate to ensure compatibility 

and to administer and manage the subject use.

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE

The Service encourages approved research to further the understanding of natural resources. Research 

by other than Service personnel adds greatly to the information base for refuge managers to make proper 

decisions. Disturbance to wildlife and vegetation by researchers could occur through observation, mist-netting, 

banding, and accessing the study area by foot or vehicle. Mist-netting or other wildlife capture techniques, for 

example, can cause direct mortality through the capture method or in trap predation, and indirectly through 

capture injury or stress caused to the organism. Plant collection can also cause direct mortality of the target 

plant and can cause indirect mortality through the collection process.

Compatibility Determination – Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel
B-172 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Project-specific stipulations outlined in each SUP will act to minimize anticipated impacts of research projects. 

These stipulations will prevent impacts to wetlands, water quality, soils, and hydrology, or actions which would 

significantly affect fish, wildlife or habitat that the refuge was established to protect. Projects which occur 

within the habitat of, or include direct monitoring of, threatened and endangered species will be subject to a 

Section 7 informal consultation with the Service’s West Virginia Field Office under the Endangered Species 

Act (87 Stat. 854, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq). Only with the approval of the Section 7 consultation 

will the refuge permit research to be conducted on habitats or individuals of threatened and endangered 

species. Research that could adversely affect critical habitat or threatened and endangered wildlife will not be 

permitted. 

The potential for user conflicts is minimal with research projects conducted on the refuge. Generally, most 

research occurs within closed areas and away from public use trails and facilities. During hunting seasons, 

hunters may encounter researchers in the field, or observe monitoring plots or other research infrastructure. 

However, these encounters would be infrequent due to the typically minimal presence of field technicians and 

interest in maintaining low profile infrastructure to prevent disturbance or vandalism of study sites. 

Overall, allowing well designed and properly reviewed research to be conducted by non-Service personnel is 

likely to have very little impact on refuge wildlife populations or plant communities. If the research project 

is conducted with professionalism and integrity, potential adverse impacts are likely to be outweighed by the 

knowledge gained about a species, habitat or public use. Additionally, researchers are regularly required to 

present information to the public as a condition of the SUP issued by the refuge. This information can be a 

public presentation of field work, interpretive programs, and other materials detailing the research project and 

results. This is beneficial because it provides an opportunity for the public to understand and learn about the 

biological resources the refuge protects and manages.

PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

This compatibility determination will be released as an appendix to the draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan/Environmental Assessment for a 45-day public review and comment period.

DETERMINATION

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY

All researchers will be required to submit a detailed research proposal following Service policy (Service 

Refuge Manual Chapter 4 Section 6). The refuge must be given at least 45 days to review proposals before 

initiation of research. If collection of wildlife is involved, the refuge must be given 60 days to review and 

decide whether to approve the proposal. Proposals will be prioritized and approved based on need, benefit, 

compatibility, and funding required. The decision whether to approve any research proposal will be at the sole 

discretion of the refuge manager.

— SUPs will be issued for all research conducted by non-Service personnel. The SUP will list all conditions 

that are necessary to ensure compatibility. The SUP will also identify a schedule for annual progress reports 

and the submittal of a final report or scientific paper. The regional refuge biologists, other Service divisions, 

and state agencies may be asked to review and comment on proposals.

— All researchers will be required to obtain appropriate state and federal permits.

— All research projects will be designed to avoid significant impacts to hydrology, water quality, and soils.

Compatibility Determination – Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-173

— All research related SUPs will contain a statement regarding the Service’s policy regarding disposition of 

biotic specimens. The current Service policy language in this regard (USFWS 1999) is, 

“You may use specimens collected under this permit, any components of any specimens 

(including natural organisms, enzymes, genetic material or seeds), and research results 

derived from collected specimens for scientific or educational purposes only, and not for 

commercial purposes unless you have entered into a Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreement (CRADA) with us. We prohibit the sale of collected research specimens or other 

transfers to third parties. Breach of any of the terms of this permit will be grounds for 

revocation of this permit and denial of future permits. Furthermore, if you sell or otherwise 

transfer collected specimens, any components thereof, or any products or any research results 

developed from such specimens or their components without a CRADA, you will pay us a 

royalty rate of 20 percent of gross revenue from such sales. In addition to such royalty, we 

may seek other damages and injunctive relief against you.”

— Any research project may be terminated at any time for non-compliance with the SUP conditions, or 

modified, redesigned, relocated or terminated upon determination by the refuge manager that the project 

is causing unanticipated adverse impacts to wildlife, wildlife habitat, approved priority public uses, or other 

refuge management activities.

JUSTIFICATION

The Service encourages approved research to further understanding of refuge natural resources. Research 

by non-Service personnel adds greatly to the information base for refuge managers to make proper decisions. 

To protect habitat and wildlife, researchers are required to submit detailed research proposals. Proposals 

are reviewed and must be approved by refuge staff prior to implementation. In addition to the stipulations 

above, project-specific stipulations outlined in each SUP will act to minimize anticipated impacts of research 

projects. Projects which occur within the habitat of, or include direct monitoring of threatened and endangered 

species will be subject to an Intra-Service Section 7 consultation. Only with the approval of the Section 7 

consultation will the refuge permit research to be conducted on habitats or individuals of threatened and 

endangered species. With the restrictions and approval process required to permit research activities this 

use will not prevent the refuge from meeting its purposes established by the Fish and Wildlife Act (1956) 

and the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986) of ensuring the protection, conservation, management 

and restoration of the wetlands of Canaan Valley, or for the management and conservation of wildlife or their 

habitats. Stipulations will be designed to prevent impacts to migratory birds to ensure the refuge meets its 

obligations under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929). In most cases the research will help guide 

refuge management to meet its purposes more effectively. For these reasons, we have determined that 

research conducted by non-Service personnel will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System or the purposes for which the refuge was established.

Refuge Manager 

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

 (Signature) (Date)

MANDATORY 10 YEAR RE-EVALUATION DATE

 

 (Date)

Compatibility Determination – Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel
B-174 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

LITERATURE CITED

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Acquisition 

 of lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of the Interior - 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final Environmental Assessment - Acquisition of lands for the Canaan 

 Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

 Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 50 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Director’s Order No. 109: Use of Specimens Collected on Fish and 

 Wildlife Lands. March 30, 1999.

Compatibility Determination – Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-175

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

USE

Maintenance of a Utility Right-of-Way

REFUGE NAME

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

DATE ESTABLISHED

August 11, 1994

ESTABLISHING AND ACQUISITION AUTHORITY

The establishment of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was first approved in an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) released on May 30, 1979. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

decided to await the outcome of litigation surrounding a proposed storage hydroelectric facility before pursuing 

any further action. The approval of the refuge was affirmed by the Service in a 1994 Final Environmental 

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact on July 11, 1994, which confirmed the adequacy of the 

previously-approved 1979 EIS. The refuge was officially established when the first tract of land was acquired 

on August 11, 1994. The Service has acquired lands for the Canaan Valley refuge under the following 

authorities:

1. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 [16 U.S.C. 742f (a)(4)]

2. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 [16 U.S.C. 3901b]

3. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 [16 U.S.C. 715d]

REFUGE PURPOSES

The refuge was established to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley and the continued availability 

of its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources to the citizens of West Virginia and the United States (USFWS 

1979, 1994). Additional refuge purposes as derived from the legislative authorities are as follows:

(1) “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources...” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f (a)(4)); 

(2) “... for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide 

and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions.” 

(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986; 16 U.S.C. 3901(b)); and,

(3) “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (Migratory 

Bird Conservation Act of 1929; 16 U.S.C. 715d).

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM MISSION

“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for 

the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”

Compatibility Determination – Maintenance of a Utility Right-of-Way
B-176 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE

(a) What is the use? Is the use a priority public use?

The use is the maintenance of a utility right-of-way (ROW) granted to Allegheny Power Company of Elkins, 

West Virginia in 2004 to accommodate a buried electric line from an existing electric pole on refuge land 

to a private residence adjacent to refuge land. The maintenance is necessary to ensure the buried electric 

cable remains functional. This use is not a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System under 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57).

(b) Where would the use be conducted?

The use occurs between the end of an existing utility easement on the south east corner of the Cooper tract 

(Tract 49) and the southern refuge boundary. This extension extends approximately 50 feet the existing utility 

easement and will accommodate a buried power line extending from an existing power pole to the refuge 

boundary and continuing on private land.

(c) When would the use be conducted?

The use is conducted by Allegheny Power on a periodic basis to inspect and maintain utility lines.

(d) How would the use be conducted?

The use is conducted by employees of Allegheny Power during scheduled and un-scheduled maintenance and 

monitoring visits. The use involves utility trucks traversing an existing refuge road to the site of a utility pole 

where a powerline extends approximately 50 feet underground across refuge land to a private residence located 

adjacent to the refuge boundary.

(d) Why is this use being proposed?

This use is being proposed to allow a local power company to maintain electric power across a short distance of 

refuge land. The alternative would be allowing the power line to deteriorate to an unsafe condition or cancelling 

the refuge’s 2004 ROW agreement and removing the power line. 

AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

The program is administered by the deputy refuge manager, resource impacts are monitored by the wildlife 

biologist, and maintenance and repair operations, when necessary are performed by a heavy equipment 

operator. Law enforcement when necessary is provided by a refuge officer.

Because vehicle access to the site is only necessary for monitoring and maintenance and these activities are 

only conducted irregularly it is expected that these costs will not be annual but sporadic. Assuming access 

is required, annual costs associated with the administration of vehicular access on the refuge are estimated 

below:

Coordination and administrative duties:

■ GS-11/12 Deputy Refuge Manager for 1 work day = $278.72

Law enforcement, monitoring vehicle travel and interactions with other users, visitor services:

■ GS-9 Park Ranger for 1 work day = $245.76

Monitoring environmental effects:

■ GS-12 Wildlife Biologist for 1/2 work day = $183.76

Compatibility Determination – Maintenance of a Utility Right-of-Way
Appendix B. Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations B-177

Costs associated with the maintenance and monitoring of this utility ROW will be the responsibility of the 

applicant, not the Service. According to Service regulations (50 CFR 29.21-2)(3)(i) the entity who requests a 

ROW must “reimburse the United States for reasonable costs incurred by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 

the monitoring the construction, operation, maintenance and termination of facilities within or adjacent to the 

permit area.” Because we will recover the costs of managing this use from the permittee Allegheny Power, 

resources are available to ensure that this use will remain compatible. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS OF THE USE

This use would require periodic monitoring and maintenance of approximately a 50-foot strip across refuge 

land by Allegheny Power personnel. Regular maintenance and monitoring are not required for underground 

electric lines. Maintenance activities would be largely a result of emergency situations to repair damages and 

to minimize risk of failure through removal of woody vegetation. Any mowing or woody vegetation removal 

would only occur along the 50-foot length of the buried line, therefore concentrating the zone of disturbance to a 

small area. Therefore we do not anticipate adverse impacts to soils, vegetation or hydrology from vehicle or foot 

traffic. We also do not anticipate any impacts to wildlife, including threatened or endangered species, because 

the site requires so little maintenance, therefore minimizing the potential for wildlife disturbance. 

This area is currently part of a refuge grassland unit which is mowed on a 3-5 year basis. As a result, no woody 

vegetation is permitted to become established. This tract is also planned to be under grassland management 

for the next 15 years based on recommendations in the refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The small 

impact area would not affect grassland management capability or wildlife habitat. There would be no impacts 

to general public or to public safety. The site of the powerline (buried cable) is in an area that is closed to public 

access for most of the year. The area is open to hunters during the state hunting season. The site of the cable 

is within 50 feet of a home and is closed to hunting by state law. Hunting is not allowed within 500 feet of an 

occupied residence. No impacts from hunting activity or on hunting activity are anticipated.

DETERMINATION

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

STIPULATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY

Allegheny Power will contact the refuge manager prior to accessing the site. If emergency conditions occur 

during times when contact with the refuge manager is not feasible, Allegheny Power will contact the refuge 

manager as soon as practical. No maintenance activities will be permitted during the breeding season of 

migratory birds, typically from late May through the middle of August.

JUSTIFICATION

Approximately 150 square feet of refuge land will be affected. The site will be accessed via an existing refuge 

road. The activity occurs in habitat that is already periodically mowed and maintained as grassland habitat, so 

no long-term changes to the habitat are expected. 

This use was determined to be compatible in 2004. The continued maintenance of this 50 foot ROW is 

compatible provided the stipulations are implemented. Additionally, the area is currently being actively 

managed as grassland and will continue to be managed as such, as indicated in the refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. Therefore required maintenance for this ROW is being performed by the refuge in 

accordance with the grassland management program. Permitting this use is not anticipated to significantly 

reduce the quality or quantity or fragment habitats now or in future years. The amount of habitat disturbance 

Compatibility Determination – Maintenance of a Utility Right-of-Way
B-178 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

is inconsequential to the amount of similar habitat which remains protected. The use will not impose significant 

adverse effects on refuge resources, including the ability of the refuge to conserve and protect the wetlands of 

Canaan Valley as directed by the Emergency Wetland Resources Act (1986) or to conserve, manage and protect 

wildlife, plants and habitats as designated by the Fish and Wildlife Act (1956).The use does not occur on lands 

acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929). It will not interfere with public use of the refuge, 

nor will it cause an undue administrative burden. Because of the small scale of this use, and the fact that the 

land is already being managed to prevent woody encroachment and stipulations specified above, the use will not 

affect the refuge’s ability to protect the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley as described in the 1979 EIS for 

the establishment of the refuge. This use will not materially interfere with or detract from the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System nor diminish from the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Refuge Manager 

 (Signature) (Date)

Concurrence

Regional Chief 

 (Signature) (Date)

MANDATORY 10 YEAR RE-EVALUATION DATE

 

 (Date)

LITERATURE CITED

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1979. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Acquisition 

of lands for the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of the Interior - 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final Environmental Assessment - Acquisition of lands for the Canaan 

Valley National Wildlife Refuge, West Virginia. Department of Interior - U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. 50 pp.

Compatibility Determination – Maintenance of a Utility Right-of-Way
Appendix C Chapter 1

Wilderness Review

Freeland

USFWS
C-1

Wilderness Review

Introduction

The purpose of a wilderness review is to identify and recommend to Congress lands and waters of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) that merit inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System 

(NWPS). Wilderness reviews are required elements of comprehensive conservation plans, are conducted in 

accordance with the refuge planning process outlined in the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (602 FW 1 and 

3), and include compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and public involvement.

The wilderness review process has three phases: inventory; study; and, recommendation. Lands and waters 

that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness are identified in the inventory phase. These areas are called 

wilderness study areas (WSAs). In the study phase, a range of management alternatives are evaluated to 

determine if a WSA is suitable for wilderness designation or management under an alternate set of goals and 

objectives that do not involve wilderness designation.

The recommendation phase consists of forwarding or reporting the suitable recommendations from the 

Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) through the Secretary of the Interior and the President 

to Congress in a wilderness study report. The wilderness study report is prepared after the record of decision 

for the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) has been signed. Areas recommended for designation are 

managed to maintain wilderness character in accordance with management goals, objectives, and strategies 

outlined in the final CCP until congress makes a decision or the CCP is amended to modify or remove the 

wilderness proposal.

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) personnel, listed at the end of this appendix, met in 2007 to 

gather information and conduct an inventory of the refuge’s lands and waters. Wilderness inventory areas 

(WIA) are bounded by roads that are suitable for public travel. After dividing the refuge into suitable WIAs, 

the team used site knowledge, existing land status maps, photographs, available land use information and 

road inventory data to determine if each inventory area met the minimum criteria for wilderness. Aerial 

photographs were used to document the imprint of human work, road locations, and other surface disturbances.

Phase I – Wilderness Inventory

Introduction

The wilderness inventory is a broad look at each planning area to identify WSAs. A WSA is an area of 

undeveloped federal land that retains its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements 

or human habitation, and further, meets the minimum criteria for wilderness as identified in Section 2(c) of the 

Wilderness Act.

Minimum Wilderness Criteria

A WSA is required to be a roadless area or an island of any size, meet the size criteria, appear natural, and 

provide for solitude or primitive recreation.

Roadless — Roadless refers to the absence of improved roads suitable and maintained for public travel by 

means of motorized vehicles primarily intended for highway use. A route maintained solely by the passage of 

vehicles does not constitute a road. Only federal lands are eligible to be considered for wilderness designation 

and inclusion within the NWPS.

The following factors were the primary considerations in evaluating the roadless criteria.

A. The area does not contain improved roads suitable and maintained for public travel by means of 

motorized vehicles primarily intended for highway use.

B. The area is an island, or contains an island that does not have improved roads suitable and maintained for 

public travel by means of motorized vehicles primarily intended for highway use.

C. The area is in federal fee title ownership.

Appendix C. Wilderness Review
C-2 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Wilderness Review

(1) Size— The size criteria can be satisfied if an area has at least 5,000 acres of contiguous roadless public land, 

or is sufficiently large that its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition is practicable.

The following factors were the primary considerations in evaluating the size criteria.

A. An area of more than 5,000 contiguous acres. State and private lands are not included in making this 

acreage determination.

B. A roadless island of any size. A roadless island is defi ned as an area surrounded by permanent waters or 

that is markedly distinguished from the surrounding lands by topographical or ecological features.

C. An area of less than 5,000 contiguous federal acres that is of suffi cient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, and of a size suitable for wilderness management.

D. An area of less than 5,000 contiguous acres that is contiguous with a designated wilderness, 

recommended wilderness, or area under wilderness review by another federal wilderness managing 

agency such as the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, or Bureau of Land Management.

(2) Naturalness — The Wilderness Act, Section 2(c), defines wilderness as an area that “generally appears 

to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of human work substantially 

unnoticeable.” The area must appear natural to the average visitor, rather than “pristine.” The presence of 

historic landscape conditions is not required.

An area may include some human impacts provided they are substantially unnoticeable in the unit as a whole. 

Significant hazards caused by humans, such as the presence of unexploded ordnance from military activity 

and the physical impacts of refuge management facilities and activities are also considered in evaluating the 

naturalness criteria.

An area may not be considered unnatural in appearance solely on the basis of the sights and sounds of human 

impacts and activities outside the boundary of the unit. The cumulative effects of these factors in conjunction 

with land base size, physiographic and vegetative characteristics were considered in the evaluation of 

naturalness.

The following factors were the primary considerations in evaluating naturalness.

A. The area appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of human work 

substantially unnoticeable.

B. The area may include some human impacts provided they are substantially unnoticeable in the unit as a 

whole.

C. Does the area contain signifi cant hazards caused by humans, such as the presence of unexploded 

ordnance from military activity?

D. The presence of physical impacts of refuge management facilities and activities.

(3a and 3b) Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation —A WSA must provide outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. The area does not have to possess 

outstanding opportunities for both solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation, and does not need to have 

outstanding opportunities on every acre. Further, an area does not have to be open to public use and access to 

qualify under this criteria; Congress has designated a number of wilderness areas in the Refuge System that 

are closed to public access to protect resource values.

Opportunities for solitude refer to the ability of a visitor to be alone and secluded from other visitors in the 

area. Primitive and unconfined recreation means non-motorized, dispersed outdoor recreation activities that 
C-3

Wilderness Review

are compatible and do not require developed facilities or mechanical transport. These primitive recreation 

activities may provide opportunities to experience challenge and risk, self reliance, and adventure. These two 

elements are not well defined by the Wilderness Act, but can be expected to occur together in most cases. 

However, an outstanding opportunity for solitude may be present in an area offering only limited primitive 

recreation potential. Conversely, an area may be so attractive for recreation use that experiencing solitude is 

not an option.

The following factors were the primary considerations in evaluating outstanding opportunities for solitude or 

primitive unconfined recreation.

A. The area offers the opportunity to avoid the sights, sounds and evidence of other people. A visitor to the 

area should be able to feel alone or isolated.

B. The area offers non-motorized, dispersed outdoor recreation activities that are compatible and do not 

require developed facilities or mechanical transport.

(4) Supplemental Values— The Wilderness Act states that an area of wilderness may contain ecological, 

geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic or historical value. Supplemental values of the area 

are optional, but the degree to which their presence enhances the area’s suitability for wilderness designation 

should be considered. The evaluation should be based on an assessment of the estimated abundance or 

importance of each of the features.

Summary of Wilderness Inventory Findings

The wilderness inventory team identified fourteen WIAs within the approved acquisition boundary of the 

Canaan Valley refuge (map C-1). The inventory phase to evaluate tracts that would qualify as WSA’s used 

the minimum criteria established to support wilderness. As such major factors that would reduce an area’s 

suitability for wilderness consideration were used as dividing lines for WIA boundary delineation. The majority 

of these boundaries were drawn following public or refuge roads which are suitable or are currently used for 

public travel. Other divisions were formed by the presence of maintained gas pipeline right of ways, a major 

visible break in forest cover and are mowed to prevent woody encroachment. Roads and maintained gas 

pipelines were considered to break the criteria for naturalness (i.e. the works of humans being substantially 

unnoticeable to the average visitor). We determined that WIAs 7 and 10 meet the necessary criteria for a WSA. 

The rest of the 12 WIAs in the Canaan Valley refuge either did not meet the size criteria or did not meet one of 

the other necessary criteria for designation as a WSA. Therefore, the suitability of the lands listed in Table C-1 

(below) that did not meet the necessary criteria will not be further analyzed for wilderness designation in this 

draft CCP/Environmental Assessment. 

Wilderness Inventory Conclusion

In this CCP, we have completed the inventory phase of the wilderness review process and have established two 

WSAs. While WIAs 6 and 7 qualify as WSAs, the planning team has decided that it needs more time to pursue 

the wilderness review process for these WIAs. Both these areas were purchased from the same owner and they 

have similar issues related to property encumbrances. In general, we have concerns about Service jurisdiction 

and management capability for these areas. More specifically, we need a better understanding of how the many 

reserved rights, rights-of-way, leases, and other agreements (up to 37 in and around WIA 7 alone) would affect 

wilderness designation. Based on informal guidance developed at the National Wildlife System Planning Chief’s 

meeting in July 2007 in Arlington, Virginia, we will prepare an amendment to the CCP after we evaluate the 

suitability of these WSAs for wilderness designation. We will complete the wilderness review process within 

3 years of completion of the final CCP. During that time, we will manage the WSAs to maintain their size, 

naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation to the extent that it will not 

prevent us from fulfilling and carrying out refuge establishing purposes and the Refuge System mission.

Attachment: Map C-1 Wilderness Inventory

Appendix C. Wilderness Review
C-4 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Wilderness Inventory Map C-1
C-5

Wilderness Review

Table C-1 Wilderness Evaluation

Wilderness 

Inventory 

Area

(1) Size: at least 

5,000 acres; or a 

roadless island; or 

is of sufficient size 

to make practicable 

its preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition; or is 

contiguous with 

designated or 

recommended 

wilderness by 

another Federal 

agency.

(2) Naturalness: 

generally 

appears to have 

been affected 

primarily by the 

forces of nature, 

with the imprint 

of man’s work 

substantially 

unnoticeable.

3(a) Solitude: 

has outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude.

3(b) Primitive 

and Unconfined 

Recreation: has 

outstanding 

opportunities 

for primitive and 

unconfined-type 

of recreation.

 (4) Supplemental 

Values: contains 

ecological, 

geological or 

other features 

of scientific, 

educational, 

scenic or 

historical value.

Parcel qualifies 

as a wilderness 

study area 

(meets criteria 1, 

2, and 3a or 3b)

WIA 1

746 acres

No. Less than 5,000 

acres; not an island; 

not of sufficient size 

for preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition; not 

adjacent to a Federal 

wilderness area.

No. Due to 

intense logging 

in the past and 

miles of logging 

roads, this area 

exhibits signs 

of major human 

impact and 

would require 

extensive 

restoration 

efforts to restore 

its naturalness. 

This area has 

not yet been 

restored, nor is it 

in the process of 

being restored.

No. Adjacent 

commercial 

cross-country 

skiing and 

snowshoeing 

operation 

attracts 

thousands of 

recreational 

users during the 

winter months.

No. The size of 

this tract and 

the fact that it 

is surrounded 

on all sides by 

either a road or 

private property 

make it difficult 

for recreational 

users to 

experience 

unconfined 

recreation.

Yes. Threatened 

and endangered 

species habitat

No

WIA 2

768 acres

No. Less than 5,000 

acres; not an island; 

not of sufficient size 

for preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition; not 

adjacent to a Federal 

wilderness area.

No. The property 

has an actively 

maintained gas 

pipeline right-ofway (ROW) and 

a high power 

transmission 

line. The ROW 

requires regular 

mowing, so both 

these features 

constitute major 

human impacts 

that significantly 

affect the 

property’s 

naturalness.

No. Because this 

area is adjacent 

to Timberline 

Resort, which 

attracts 

thousands of 

skiers in the 

winter and 

hundreds of 

bicyclists in 

the summer, 

there are limited 

opportunities 

for solitude. 

Visual and 

auditory impacts 

of this resort 

include housing 

developments 

and roads.

No. Because of 

its small size and 

the surrounding 

developed 

areas (private 

property), there 

are limited 

opportunities 

for primitive 

and unconfined 

recreation.

Yes. Rare plant 

communities, 

scenic value, 

endangered 

species habitat

No

Appendix C. Wilderness Review
C-6 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Wilderness Review

Wilderness 

Inventory 

Area

(1) Size: at least 

5,000 acres; or a 

roadless island; or 

is of sufficient size 

to make practicable 

its preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition; or is 

contiguous with 

designated or 

recommended 

wilderness by 

another Federal 

agency.

(2) Naturalness: 

generally 

appears to have 

been affected 

primarily by the 

forces of nature, 

with the imprint 

of man’s work 

substantially 

unnoticeable.

3(a) Solitude: 

has outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude.

3(b) Primitive 

and Unconfined 

Recreation: has 

outstanding 

opportunities 

for primitive and 

unconfined-type 

of recreation.

 (4) Supplemental 

Values: contains 

ecological, 

geological or 

other features 

of scientific, 

educational, 

scenic or 

historical value.

Parcel qualifies 

as a wilderness 

study area 

(meets criteria 1, 

2, and 3a or 3b)

WIA 3

992 acres

No. Less than 5,000 

acres, not an island 

and not adjacent to 

a federal wilderness 

area. Not suitable 

for preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition, and 

not suitable 

for wilderness 

management 

because of its 

shape and irregular 

boundary, and 

lack of a sufficient 

core area that 

leaves the whole 

area vulnerable to 

impairment from 

adjacent land uses.

No. The property 

has an actively 

maintained gas 

pipeline rightof-way and 

a high power 

transmission 

line. The ROW 

requires regular 

mowing, so both 

these features 

constitute major 

human impacts 

that significantly 

affect the 

property’s 

naturalness.

No. The area’s 

north and east 

side is adjacent 

to Timberline 

Resort. Visitors 

will see 

development 

from every 

perspective in 

this inventory 

area, thus limiting 

opportunities for 

solitude. Auditory 

impacts from 

resort residents 

and guests, and 

from surrounding 

roads, also limit 

opportunities for 

solitude.

No. The area’s 

irregular 

boundary and 

lack of a large 

core do not 

lend itself to 

outstanding 

opportunities 

for primitive 

and unconfined 

recreation.

Yes. Rare plant 

communities, 

scenic value

No

WIA 4

107 acres

No. Less than 5,000 

acres, not an island, 

not of sufficient size 

to make practicable 

its preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition, and 

not suitable 

for wilderness 

management. Also, 

not adjacent to a 

federal wilderness 

area.

No. Although 

physical 

and plant 

communities are 

natural, this area 

is bordered by 

a county road. 

Vehicle traffic 

on this road 

constitutes a 

major human 

impact and 

seriously affects 

the naturalness 

character.

No. Because of 

the visual and 

auditory impacts 

of the bordering 

county road, 

there is virtually 

no opportunity 

for solitude.

No. Because 

of the small 

size and the 

proximity of the 

county road, 

there are no 

outstanding 

opportunities 

for primitive 

or unconfined 

recreation.

Yes. Ecological 

values because 

of the wetland.

No
C-7

Wilderness Review

Wilderness 

Inventory 

Area

(1) Size: at least 

5,000 acres; or a 

roadless island; or 

is of sufficient size 

to make practicable 

its preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition; or is 

contiguous with 

designated or 

recommended 

wilderness by 

another Federal 

agency.

(2) Naturalness: 

generally 

appears to have 

been affected 

primarily by the 

forces of nature, 

with the imprint 

of man’s work 

substantially 

unnoticeable.

3(a) Solitude: 

has outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude.

3(b) Primitive 

and Unconfined 

Recreation: has 

outstanding 

opportunities 

for primitive and 

unconfined-type 

of recreation.

 (4) Supplemental 

Values: contains 

ecological, 

geological or 

other features 

of scientific, 

educational, 

scenic or 

historical value.

Parcel qualifies 

as a wilderness 

study area 

(meets criteria 1, 

2, and 3a or 3b)

WIA 5

547 acres

No. Less than 5,000 

acres; not an island; 

not of sufficient size 

to make practicable 

its preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition, and 

not suitable 

for wilderness 

management. Also, 

not adjacent to a 

federal wilderness 

area.

No. The property 

contains 

a private 

in-holding that 

has a power 

line and a 

maintained road 

that is suitable 

for public 

travel. These 

two features 

significantly 

impair the area’s 

naturalness.

No. 

Opportunities 

for solitude are 

limited and not 

outstanding 

because of a 

road that runs 

through the 

property and 

because of 

the adjacent 

Timberline 

Resort, which 

has substantial 

development.

No. Because of 

the area’s small 

size and the 

adjacent county 

road, there are 

no outstanding 

opportunities 

for primitive 

or unconfined 

recreation.

Yes. Ecological 

values

No

WIA 6

966 acres

No. Less than 5,000 

acres and not an 

island. Not suitable 

for preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition, and 

not suitable 

for wilderness 

management 

because of slivers 

of land on the 

area’s west side 

that create an 

unmanageable 

boundary and 

leaves these areas 

vulnerable to 

impairment from 

adjacent land uses. 

Also, not adjacent to 

a federal wilderness 

area.

Yes. No. Although the 

northern portions 

of this area may 

provide some 

outstanding 

opportunities 

for solitude, this 

is only a small 

portion of the 

rest of the area 

and it is not 

representative 

of the whole 

area. Substantial 

visual and 

auditory impacts 

of surrounding 

developments 

and roads affect 

the wilderness 

character of the 

rest of the area.

No. Because of 

the area’s small 

size and adjacent 

roads, there are 

no outstanding 

opportunities 

for primitive 

or unconfined 

recreation.

Yes. Rare plant 

communities, 

scenic values

No

WIA 7

9,969 acres

Yes. Greater than 

5,000 acres and 

shares a boundary 

of a little under 400 

feet with the Dolly 

Sods Wilderness 

Area

Yes. However, 

possible 

unexploded 

ordnance issues 

need to be 

explored

Yes Yes Yes. Rare plant 

communities, 

scenic values

Yes

Appendix C. Wilderness Review
C-8 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Wilderness Review

Wilderness 

Inventory 

Area

(1) Size: at least 

5,000 acres; or a 

roadless island; or 

is of sufficient size 

to make practicable 

its preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition; or is 

contiguous with 

designated or 

recommended 

wilderness by 

another Federal 

agency.

(2) Naturalness: 

generally 

appears to have 

been affected 

primarily by the 

forces of nature, 

with the imprint 

of man’s work 

substantially 

unnoticeable.

3(a) Solitude: 

has outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude.

3(b) Primitive 

and Unconfined 

Recreation: has 

outstanding 

opportunities 

for primitive and 

unconfined-type 

of recreation.

 (4) Supplemental 

Values: contains 

ecological, 

geological or 

other features 

of scientific, 

educational, 

scenic or 

historical value.

Parcel qualifies 

as a wilderness 

study area 

(meets criteria 1, 

2, and 3a or 3b)

WIA 8

693 acres

No. Less than 5,000 

acres and not an 

island. Not suitable 

for preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition and 

not suitable 

for wilderness 

management 

because of its 

long, narrow 

configuration and 

lack of a sufficient 

core area that 

leaves the whole 

area vulnerable to 

impairment from 

adjacent land uses. 

Also, not adjacent to 

a federal wilderness 

area.

No. This area 

contains a 

significant 

amount of 

logging roads 

that have not 

been restored 

and are not in 

the process of 

being restored. 

Also, the area 

is bounded by 

A-Frame Road, 

a maintained 

public road. 

Both these road 

impacts have a 

significant effect 

on the area’s 

naturalness.

No. Because this 

is a linear area 

that is bounded 

for miles by 

A-Frame Road, 

there are no 

outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude.

No. Because 

of the small 

size of the area 

and because 

it is bounded 

for miles by 

A-Frame Road, 

there are no 

outstanding 

opportunities 

for primitive 

and unconfined 

recreation.

Yes. Scenic 

values

No

WIA 9

149 acres

No. Less than 5,000 

acres and not an 

island. Not suitable 

for preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition and 

not suitable 

for wilderness 

management 

because of its 

lack of a sufficient 

core area that 

leaves the whole 

area vulnerable to 

impairment from 

adjacent land uses. 

Also, not adjacent to 

a federal wilderness 

area.

Yes. No. Because the 

area is so small 

and because 

a large portion 

of it is bounded 

by A-Frame 

Road, there are 

no outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude

No. Because 

of the small 

size of the area 

and because 

so much of it 

is bounded by 

A-Frame Road, 

there are no 

outstanding 

opportunities 

for primitive 

and unconfined 

recreation.

Yes. Scenic 

values

No
C-9

Wilderness Review

Wilderness 

Inventory 

Area

(1) Size: at least 

5,000 acres; or a 

roadless island; or 

is of sufficient size 

to make practicable 

its preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition; or is 

contiguous with 

designated or 

recommended 

wilderness by 

another Federal 

agency.

(2) Naturalness: 

generally 

appears to have 

been affected 

primarily by the 

forces of nature, 

with the imprint 

of man’s work 

substantially 

unnoticeable.

3(a) Solitude: 

has outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude.

3(b) Primitive 

and Unconfined 

Recreation: has 

outstanding 

opportunities 

for primitive and 

unconfined-type 

of recreation.

 (4) Supplemental 

Values: contains 

ecological, 

geological or 

other features 

of scientific, 

educational, 

scenic or 

historical value.

Parcel qualifies 

as a wilderness 

study area 

(meets criteria 1, 

2, and 3a or 3b)

WIA 10

412 acres

Yes. Less than 5,000 

acres, not an island, 

and not adjacent to 

Federal wilderness 

land, but suitable for 

preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition and 

suitable for 

wilderness 

management.

Yes. Yes, but the 

area is small 

and the traffic 

from Route 93 

(to the north) 

is audible from 

anywhere on the 

property. Also, 

the status of the 

surrounding land 

use is uncertain 

and if it is not 

protected soon, 

it could be 

converted to a 

highly developed 

area.

No. Because 

of the area’s 

small size and 

the surrounding 

private property, 

there are no 

outstanding 

opportunities 

for primitive 

and unconfined 

recreation.

Yes. Rare plant 

communities, 

scenic values, 

ecological values

Yes

WIA 11

134 acres

No. Less than 5,000 

acres, not an island, 

not of sufficient size 

to make practicable 

its preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition, and 

not suitable 

for wilderness 

management. Also, 

not adjacent to a 

federal wilderness 

area.

No. A power line 

that runs through 

the property and 

auditory impacts 

from two major 

roads on either 

side of the 

property both 

have significant 

effects on 

the area’s 

naturalness.

No. The area’s 

small size and 

the visual and 

auditory impacts 

of surrounding 

developed lands 

and road use 

severely diminish 

any opportunities 

for solitude.

No. The area’s 

small size and 

its proximity 

to a state 

highway make 

it unsuitable 

for outstanding 

opportunities 

for primitive 

and unconfined 

recreation.

Yes. Ecological 

Values.

No

Appendix C. Wilderness Review
C-10 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Wilderness Review

Wilderness 

Inventory 

Area

(1) Size: at least 

5,000 acres; or a 

roadless island; or 

is of sufficient size 

to make practicable 

its preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition; or is 

contiguous with 

designated or 

recommended 

wilderness by 

another Federal 

agency.

(2) Naturalness: 

generally 

appears to have 

been affected 

primarily by the 

forces of nature, 

with the imprint 

of man’s work 

substantially 

unnoticeable.

3(a) Solitude: 

has outstanding 

opportunities for 

solitude.

3(b) Primitive 

and Unconfined 

Recreation: has 

outstanding 

opportunities 

for primitive and 

unconfined-type 

of recreation.

 (4) Supplemental 

Values: contains 

ecological, 

geological or 

other features 

of scientific, 

educational, 

scenic or 

historical value.

Parcel qualifies 

as a wilderness 

study area 

(meets criteria 1, 

2, and 3a or 3b)

WIA 12

526 acres

No. Less than 5,000 

acres, not an island 

and not adjacent to 

a federal wilderness 

area. Not suitable 

for preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition and not 

suitable for wilderness management 

because of its shape 

and irregular boundary, and lack of a 

suffi cient core area 

that leaves the whole 

area vulnerable to 

impairment from 

adjacent land uses. 

No. The area is 

bisected by a 

power/phone 

line, and contains 

a graveled 

refuge road 

used seasonally for hunter 

access. These 

two features 

have signifi cant 

impacts on the 

area’s naturalness character. 

No. Visual and 

auditory impacts 

of surrounding 

developed lands 

and road use 

severely diminish 

any opportunities 

for solitude.

No. The area’s 

small size and 

its proximity to 

a state highway 

make it unsuitable for outstanding opportunities 

for primitive 

and unconfi ned 

recreation. 

Yes. Ecological 

Values.

No

WIA 13

79 acres

No. Less than 5,000 

acres, not an island, 

not of suffi cient size 

to make practicable 

its preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition and not 

suitable for wilderness management. 

Also, not adjacent to 

a federal wilderness 

area

No. The property 

has an actively 

maintained 

gas pipeline 

right-of-way 

that constitutes 

a major human 

impact and signifi cantly affects 

the property’s 

naturalness. 

No. The area’s 

small size and 

the visual and 

auditory impacts 

of surrounding 

developed lands 

and road use 

severely diminish 

any opportunities 

for solitude. 

No. The area’s 

small size and 

its proximity to 

a state highway 

make it unsuitable for outstanding opportunities 

for primitive 

and unconfi ned 

recreation. 

No No

WIA 14

74 acres

No. Less than 5,000 

acres, not an island, 

not of suffi cient size 

to make practicable 

its preservation and 

use in an unimpaired 

condition and not 

suitable for wilderness management. 

Also, not adjacent to 

a federal wilderness 

area

No. This area 

contains the 

refuge headquarters and 

maintenance 

facilities as well 

as an active 

natural gas well. 

These structures 

have signifi cant 

impacts on the 

area’s naturalness character.

No. The area’s 

small size and 

the visual and 

auditory impacts 

of surrounding 

developed lands 

and road use 

severely diminish 

any opportunities 

for solitude. 

No. The area’s 

small size and 

its proximity to 

a state highway 

make it unsuitable for outstanding opportunities 

for primitive 

and unconfi ned 

recreation.

No No
Appendix D

Wild and Scenic River Review

Misty Freeland

USFWS
Appendix D. Wild and Scenic River Review D-1

Wild and Scenic River Review

Introduction

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Act), (Pub.L. 90-543 as amended: 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) established a 

method for providing federal protection for certain free-flowing rivers, preserving them and their immediate 

environments for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The function of this wild and scenic 

river review is to inventory and study the rivers, river segments and their immediate environments within the 

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) acquisition boundary to determine if they merit inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS). 

Section 5(d) (1) of the Act states in part: In all planning for the use and development of water and related 

land resources, consideration shall be given by all federal agencies involved to potential national wild, scenic 

and recreational river areas, and all river basin and project plan reports submitted to the Congress shall 

consider and discuss any such potential. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall 

make specific studies and investigations to determine which additional wild, scenic and recreational river 

areas within the United States shall be evaluated in planning reports by all federal agencies as potential 

alternative uses of the water and related land resources involved. 

Wild and scenic river considerations are a required element of comprehensive conservation plans and conducted 

in accordance with the refuge planning process outlined in 602 FW 1 and 3, including public involvement and 

National Environmental Policy Act compliance.

As part of the Section 5(d) (1) review process, we are required to include all river segments that are within the 

planning area and listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI). The NRI is maintained by the National 

Park Service (Park Service) and lists more than 3,400 free-flowing river segments in the United States that 

are believed to possess one or more “outstandingly remarkable” natural or cultural values judged to be of more 

than local or regional significance. A 32 mile reach of the Blackwater River from the headwaters (Canaan 

Valley) to Hendricks is listed on the NRI. A 12.8 mile portion of the reach is within the planning area and is 

included as part of this NWSRS review. 

When a river or river segment is determined to be potentially eligible through the inventory process, its 

eligibility status is forwarded to the Park Service for inclusion into the NRI. The results of this inventory will 

be forwarded to the Park Service for inclusion on the NRI.

There are three phases to the wild and scenic river review process: inventory, study, and recommendation. In 

the inventory stage, we determine if any of the river or river segments within the planning area are eligible 

for NWSRS designation. We then determine the potential classification of eligible the river or river segments 

as wild, scenic, or recreational (Table E-1). To be eligible for wild and scenic river designation, a river or river 

segment is required to be free flowing and possess at least one outstanding remarkable value (ORV). The Act 

identifies an ORV as recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. The river 

eligibility and classifications assigned during this inventory stage are tentative, and would be subject to further 

consideration during the study phase. Final determinations would be incorporated into the Comprehensive 

River Management Plan for any river/river segment receiving eventual designation as a component of the 

NWSRS.

In the study phase, we conduct a suitability study to determine if the river or river segments that were found 

eligible are suitable for designation to the NWSRS. The Act identifies the factors that will be considered and 

documented in determining the suitability of a river or river segment for inclusion in the NWSRS. Section 4(a) 

of the Act states that the study will include: ... maps and illustrations, ...; the characteristics which do or do not 

make the area a worthy addition to the system; the current status of landownership and use in the area; the 

reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water which would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed 

if the area were included in the national wild and scenic rivers system; the federal agency ... by which it is 

proposed the area, should it be added to the system, be administered; the extent to which it is proposed that 

such administration, including the costs thereof, be shared by state and local agencies; and the estimated cost 

to the United States of acquiring necessary lands and interests in land and of administering the area, should 

it be added to the system.... 
D-2 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Wild and Scenic River Review

The study area covers each river or river segment and their immediate environment. The immediate 

environment is an area extending the length of the river or river segment being studied and extending in width 

one-quarter mile from each bank of the river. 

The recommendation phase consists of forwarding the wild and scenic river study report from the Director 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) through the Secretary of the Interior and the President to 

Congress. The report is prepared after the record of decision for the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) has been signed. The river or river segments recommended for NWSRS designation are managed to 

maintain their character in accordance with management goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in the final 

CCP until congress makes a favorable legislative determination or the CCP is amended to modify or remove 

the wild and scenic river proposal. 

This wild and scenic river review is limited to the inventory phase only. Due to previous personnel 

commitments, the affected states and partners were not prepared to provide the appropriate involvement that 

would be needed to move the results of the inventory phase of this review to the study and recommendation 

phases. The interdisciplinary study team (IDT) decided that it would be appropriate to inventory only 

those rivers and river segments that flow within the boundaries of the Canaan Valley refuge because the 

federal portions of these rivers are in most cases only small segments of a much longer river and there is 

not necessarily a real break in their character at the refuge boundary. We believe that the rivers that were 

inventoried in this review should all be studied in total and with the full participation and involvement of our 

federal, state, local and non-governmental partners.

The Interdisciplinary Study Team

The IDT, comprising Service Region 5 Regional Office, Canaan Valley refuge, and West Virginia Division 

of Natural Resources (WVDNR), met at the refuge on February 20, 2007 to determine if any of the river or 

river segments within the planning area were eligible for NWSRS designation, and to tentatively classify 

each eligible river or river segment as wild, scenic, or recreational. This process required combining site 

knowledge with existing land status maps, photographs, and available land use information to determine if any 

of the refuge riverine systems were eligible for NWSRS designation. Additional information on the planning 

area’s river resource values, and guidance on alternative river conservation and management approaches, was 

provided through public/stakeholder involvement. The river eligibility and classifications that were assigned 

during the inventory phase are tentative. 

The IDT members are listed below.

■ Jonathan Schafler, Refuge Manager, Canaan Valley refuge, Davis, West Virginia

■ Andy Hofmann, Deputy Refuge Manager, Canaan Valley refuge, Davis, West Virginia 

■ Ken Sturm, Wildlife Biologist, Canaan Valley refuge, Davis, West Virginia 

■ Leah Ceperley, Wildlife Biologist, Canaan Valley refuge, Davis, West Virginia 

■ Jackie Burns, Park Ranger, Canaan Valley refuge, Davis, West Virginia 

■ Beth Goldstein, Planning Team Leader, Northeast Regional Office, Hadley, MA 

■ Keith Krantz, Wildlife Biologist, WVDNR

The IDT will meet within two years of the approval the CCP to determine if any of the river or river segments 

within the planning area are eligible for NWSRS designation, and to tentatively classify each eligible river or 

river segment as wild, scenic, or recreational. This process will require combined site knowledge with existing 

land status maps, photographs, and available land use information to determine if any of the refuge riverine 

systems were eligible for NWSRS designation. Additional information on the planning area’s river resource 

values, and guidance on alternative river conservation and management approaches, will be provided through 

public/stakeholder involvement. The river eligibility and classifications that were assigned during the inventory 

phase are tentative.
Appendix D. Wild and Scenic River Review D-3

Wild and Scenic River Review

Phase I – Wild and Scenic River Inventory

Introduction

The function of the wild and scenic river inventory is to identify rivers or segments of rivers and their 

immediate environment within the planning area that meet the minimum criteria for wild and scenic river 

eligibility under the Act. The wild and scenic river inventory area considers all river or river segments within 

the planning area and their immediate environments. The immediate environment is the area extending 

the length of the river or river segment being studied and extending in width of one-quarter mile from each 

bank of the river. The immediate environment is not to exceed 320 acres per river mile. Those rivers or river 

segments that meet the minimum eligibility criteria are tentatively classified as wild, scenic, or recreational.

Minimum Wild and Scenic River Criteria

To be eligible for designation as a wild and scenic river, a river or river segment and their immediate 

environment is required to possess at least one ORV and be free flowing.

Outstanding Remarkable Values

Section 1(b) of the Act identifies the ORVs in the following manner: 

“It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation 

which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, 

geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in freeflowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit 

and enjoyment of present and future generations.”

The following ORV definitions were taken from the December1999 joint U.S. Forest Service and Park Service 

technical report entitled The Wild and Scenic River Study Process. The technical report was prepared for the 

interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council. As stated in the report: 

The following eligibility criteria are offered to foster greater consistency within the federal riveradministering agencies. They are intended to set minimum thresholds to establish ORVs and are illustrative 

but not all-inclusive. If utilized in an agency’s planning process, these criteria may be modified to make them 

more meaningful in the area of comparison, and additional criteria may be included. 

Scenery: The landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color and related factors result 

in notable or exemplary visual features and/or attractions. Scenery and visual attractions may be 

highly diverse over the majority of the river or river segment.

Recreation: Recreational opportunities are, or have the potential to be, popular enough to attract 

visitors from throughout or beyond the region of comparison or are unique or rare within the region.

■ Interpretive opportunities may be exceptional and attract, or have the potential to attract, 

visitors from outside the region of comparison.

■ The river may provide, or have the potential to provide, settings for national or regional usage 

or competitive events.

Geology: The river or the area within the river corridor contains one or more example of a geologic 

feature, process or phenomenon that is unique or rare within the region of comparison. 

Fish: Fish values may be judged on the relative merits of fish populations, habitat, or a combination 

of these river-related conditions.

■ Populations: The river is nationally or regionally an important producer of resident and/or 

anadromous fish species. Of particular significance is the presence of wild stocks and/or federal 

or state listed (or candidate) threatened, endangered or sensitive species. Diversity of species 

is an important consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination of “outstandingly 

remarkable.”
D-4 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Wild and Scenic River Review

■ Habitat: The river provides exceptionally high quality habitat for fish species indigenous to 

the region of comparison. Of particular significance is habitat for wild stocks and/or federal 

or state listed (or candidate) threatened, endangered or sensitive species. Diversity of habitats 

is an important consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination of “outstandingly 

remarkable.”

Wildlife: Wildlife values may be judged on the relative merits of either terrestrial or aquatic wildlife 

populations or habitat or a combination of these conditions.

■ Populations: The river, or area within the river corridor, contains nationally or regionally 

important populations of indigenous wildlife species. Of particular significance are species 

considered to be unique, and/or populations of federal or state listed (or candidate) threatened 

endangered or sensitive species. Diversity of species is an important consideration and could, 

in itself, lead to a determination of “outstandingly remarkable.”

■ Habitat: The river, or area within the river corridor, provides exceptionally high quality habitat 

for wildlife of national or regional significance, and/or may provide unique habitat or a critical 

link in habitat conditions for federal or state listed (or candidate) threatened, endangered or 

sensitive species. Contiguous habitat conditions are such that the biological needs of the species 

are met. Diversity of habitats is an important consideration and could, in itself, lead to a 

determination of “outstandingly remarkable.”

Prehistory: The river, or area within the river corridor, contains a site(s) where there is evidence of 

occupation or use by Native Americans. Sites must have unique or rare characteristics or exceptional 

human interest value(s). Sites may have national or regional importance for interpreting prehistory; 

may be rare and represent an area where a culture or cultural period was first identified and 

described; may have been used concurrently by two or more cultural groups; and/or may have been 

used by cultural groups for rare sacred purposes. Many such sites are listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places, which is administered by the NPS.

History: The river or area within the river corridor contains a site(s) or feature(s) associated with a 

significant event, an important person, or a cultural activity of the past that was rare or one-of-akind in the region. Many such sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A historic 

site(s) and/or features(s) is 50 years old or older in most cases.

Other Values: While no specific national evaluation guidelines have been developed for the “other 

similar values” category, assessments of additional river-related values consistent with the foregoing 

guidance may be developed -- including, but not limited to, hydrology, paleontology and botany 

resources. 

Wild and Scenic River Classification

Section 2(b) of the Act defines the classifications of Wild and Scenic Rivers in the following manner: 

Every wild, scenic or recreational river in its free-flowing condition, or upon restoration to this 

condition, shall be considered eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

and, if included, shall be classified, designated, and administered as one of the following:

1) Wild river areas -- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters 

unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.

2) Scenic river areas -- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with 

shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in 

places by roads.
Appendix D. Wild and Scenic River Review D-5

Wild and Scenic River Review

3) Recreational river areas -- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road 

or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone 

some impoundment or diversion in the past.

Summary of the Wild and Scenic River Inventory Findings

All or portions of five rivers occur within the planning area and were considered for wild and scenic river 

eligibility during the inventory. For inventory purposes, the IDT evaluated those portions of each river, defined 

as a “river segment”, which lie within the refuge’s currently approved acquisition boundary (see map D-1). The 

IDT members determined that all five segments met the criteria for wild and scenic river eligibility. These five 

river segments and their immediate environments were determined to be free- flowing and possess at least one 

ORV. A description of each eligible river segment, its immediate environment, and the IDT inventory findings 

are summarized below. The IDT inventory findings are summarized in Table D-2. 

River Segment: Blackwater River

Length: 12.8 miles

Outstandingly Remarkable Values: Scenic, Recreation, Fishing, Wildlife, Other Values (rare wetland 

communities)

Tentative Classification: Scenic, Recreation

This large, free flowing section of the Blackwater River is tannic and generally flat with a bottom that 

varies from rocky to sandy. There is no development along the Blackwater within the refuge, although 

there is some development as it leaves the refuge boundary and approaches the town of Davis, West 

Virginia. The most dominant habitat types along the river are northern hardwood forest and shrub 

wetlands. 

The Blackwater River was historically home to cold water fish including brook trout and redside dace. 

However, past land use has affected temperature and acidity in the river. It is now assumed that both 

native brook trout and redside dace have been extirpated from the mainstem Blackwater though they 

may still be found in several tributaries and springs. The current fishery in the Blackwater River 

includes warm water species and stocked trout. The river has one of the highest trout stocking rates in 

West Virginia according to WVDNR. Stocked species are primarily rainbow trout with the addition of 

brown, brook, and golden trout. Fishing can be moderate to heavy and is typically focused at the two 

sites where roads cross the river. A fishing pier has been constructed on the refuge at one of these sites 

to facilitate access. There are five other fishing access points via refuge trails. Kayaking and canoeing 

infrequently occur along this section of the Blackwater River since it is fairly shallow and contains 

large amounts of deadfall. Any boating activity on the river is usually associated with periods of high 

water after spring rains. 

Other values include the coniferous habitats along the Blackwater River, which are rare, globally 

significant communities. Three of these communities, the Balsam Fir - Black Ash Swamp (S1,G1), 

Balsam Fir - Winterberry Swamp (S1,G2), and Balsam Fir - Oatgrass Swamp (S2,G2) are listed as 

extremely rare at both state and global levels. In addition, the river is important habitat for state-listed 

waterfowl including American black duck, mallard, and wood duck. The riparian corridor supports 

other state-listed birds including American bittern, alder flycatcher, northern goshawk and northern 

harrier. Beaver, muskrat, river otter, and mink can regularly be found along the river. Many statelisted small mammal species, including Eastern small-footed bat, southern pygmy shrew, and meadow 

jumping mouse have been documented from along the shoreline of the Blackwater River.

River Segment: North Branch Blackwater River

Length: 4.9 miles

Outstandingly Remarkable Values: Scenic, Wildlife, Other Values (rare wetland communities, 

circumneutral wetland system)

Tentative Classification: Scenic, Recreation

The North Branch of the Blackwater River begins on the Monongahela National Forest and flows down 

slope approximately 1 mile until it crosses State Route 32 and enters Canaan Valley refuge. After it 

enters the refuge, the North Branch is owned entirely by the Service except for two small sections 
D-6 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Wild and Scenic River Review

(less than 0.25 miles combined). The sections of the North Branch on the refuge are primarily flat and 

meander northward to join the Blackwater River. The dominant habitat type along the North Branch 

is successional old field habitat interspersed with northern hardwood forest and shrub and herbaceous 

wetlands. There is some light development (farmland) that can be seen from sections of the river.

The North Branch was historically home to cold water fish, including redside dace and brook trout. 

However, changing land use affected temperature and acidity in the river, and it is assumed that 

neither brook trout nor redside dace are currently found in the stream. The current fishery resembles 

other streams in Canaan Valley and supports game fish including largemouth bass and brown trout. 

Fishing pressure on the North Branch is very light. There is one access point on this section, and it is 

rarely used by fishermen. Boating pressure on the North Branch is extremely light and is focused at 

times of high water. 

Other values of the North Branch riparian corridor include globally rare conifer communities including 

Balsam Fir - Black Ash Swamp (S1,G1) and Balsam Fir - Winterberry Swamp (S1,G2). Rare plants 

including Jacob’s ladder and glade spurge are also found within the riparian corridor of the North 

Branch. The riparian wetland system is one of the largest circumneutral wetlands in the state provide 

a rich botanical diversity. The North Branch provides habitat for many state-listed small mammal 

species, and larger mammals including beaver, mink, and muskrat regularly use the stream. The North 

Branch is documented habitat for state listed waterfowl including American black duck, mallard, and 

wood duck. The mixed old field and alder habitats along the North Branch are important for American 

woodcock, alder flycatcher, swamp sparrow, and northern harrier.

River Segment: Little Blackwater River

Length: 6.1 miles

Outstandingly Remarkable Values: Scenic, Wildlife, Other Values (rare wetland communities)

Tentative Classification: Scenic, Wild

The entire Little Blackwater River (including the headwaters) is free flowing and completely contained 

within the refuge’s acquisition boundary. As of 2008, the refuge owns the entire river with the 

exception of a small 0.6 mile section that flows onto private land in between refuge tracts. There is no 

development along the shoreline of the Little Blackwater, and the river is currently inaccessible to the 

general public via road or trail. Primary habitat types along the Little Blackwater River are shrub 

and herbaceous wetlands. Northern hardwood forest and forested wetland make up less of the riparian 

zone of the Little Blackwater River than other rivers on the refuge. The fishery in the river includes 

largemouth bass, brown trout, and at least two species of catfish. Fishing and boating pressure is very 

light on the Little Blackwater, chiefly because there are no public access points.

Other values include several rare, globally significant communities along the Little Blackwater River, 

including Balsam Fir - Oatgrass Swamp (S2,G2), Nodding Sedge - Prickly Bog Sedge Seep (S2,G2), 

American Bur-reed Marsh (S2, G2G3), and Red Spruce - Yellow Birch - Mannagrass Swamp (S2S3,G3). 

The shrubby nature of habitats along the Little Blackwater makes it important for state listed species 

including alder flycatcher and swamp sparrow. The slow, meandering river lends itself as habitat for 

waterfowl including wood duck, mallard, and American black duck and is important for waterbirds like 

Wilson’s snipe and American bittern. Beaver, mink, and river otter use the Little Blackwater regularly. 

The river has not been well surveyed for small mammals, though it is probable that the riparian 

corridor provides habitat for many state-listed small mammal species.

River Segment: Sand Run

Length: 1.6 miles

Outstandingly Remarkable Values: Scenic, Other Values (rare wetland communities)

Tentative Classification: Scenic, Wild

Sand Run is impounded by a dam within a private development upstream of Canaan Valley refuge. 

However, the 1.6 mile section of Sand Run that runs through the refuge is free flowing into the 

Blackwater River. Sand Run is primarily forested, with northern hardwoods making up over sixty 

percent of habitat found within the riparian zone. Sand Run can only be accessed by trail, and there 

is very light fishing and no boating on the stream. Sand Run was historically home to brook trout and 

redside dace. However, changing water temperature and chemistry impacted the fishery, and neither 

of these species have been reported from Sand Run since 1997. Other values of Sand Run’s forested 
Appendix D. Wild and Scenic River Review D-7

Wild and Scenic River Review

riparian habitat include its importance for forest birds and as a movement corridor for various bat 

species. Additionally, the Sand Run riparian corridor contains globally rare communities including 

Balsam Fir - Black Ash Swamp (S1,G1), and Balsam Fir - Oatgrass Swamp (S2,G2). The refuge has 

started replanting the red spruce and balsam fir that historically grew along Sand Run.

River Segment: Glade Run

Length: 5.6 miles

Outstandingly Remarkable Values: Scenic, Wildlife, Other Values (rare wetland communities, 

circumneutral wetland system)

Tentative Classification: Scenic, Wild

Glade Run is a naturally flowing stream located entirely on the refuge. The stream is flat and gently 

runs northward through shrub wetland, old field, and northern hardwoods to join the Blackwater 

River. Glade Run is only accessible by trail and is lightly used by fishermen looking for warm water 

species like bass. The stream is small and not typically used for boating. Views of Glade Run from 

refuge trails are considered highly scenic and typify “Canaan Valley” to many visitors. There is no 

current development visible from Glade Run. There is one historic stone foundation visible from the 

stream, a remnant from the Bowman-Cardwell farm and a reminder of Canaan Valley’s farming 

history.

Glade Run is naturally impounded into a series of large beaver ponds. These ponds and associated 

habitats are some of the most significant waterfowl and waterbird areas on the refuge. The Glade Run 

drainage provides habitat for wood duck and mallard as well as other state-listed species including 

American black duck, Wilson’s snipe, American bittern, and swamp sparrow. Surrounding old field 

habitats are used by golden-winged warbler and meadow jumping mice. Nearby alder and aspen 

stands are considered high quality habitat for alder flycatcher and American woodcock. The Glade 

Run drainage is hunted by both local and visiting sportsmen every fall. River otter, beaver, and mink 

are found along Glade Run, and over twenty odonate species have been documented from the site. 

Migrating bald eagles are regularly spotted along the drainage. Other values of Glade run include its 

contribution to a large circumneutral riparian wetland system that provides rich botanical diversity. A 

variety of rare plant species and communities occur within this watershed supported by Glade Run. It 

is home to one of the largest American bur-reed marshes in West Virginia. This community has been 

ranked rare at both a state and global level (S2, G2/G3).

Protective Management

When a river segment is determined to be eligible and given a preliminary classification, the outstandingly 

remarkable values shall be afforded adequate protection, subject to valid existing rights, and until the 

eligibility determination is superseded. Management activities and authorized uses shall not be allowed to 

adversely affect either the eligibility, or the tentative classification from a wild area to a scenic area or a scenic 

area to a recreational river area.

Public notification of the protective management will occur no later than publication and release of this 

CCP. However, protective management shall be initiated by the refuge manager as soon as the eligibility is 

determined. 

Specific management prescriptions for eligible river segments should provide protection in the following ways:

1. Free-fl owing values: The free-fl owing characteristics of the eligible river segments cannot be modifi ed to 

allow stream impoundments, diversions, channelization and/or rip-rapping to the extent the Service is 

authorized under law.

2. River Related Values: Each segment shall be managed to protect identifi ed outstandingly remarkable 

values and, to the extent practicable such values shall be enhanced.

3. Classifi cation Impacts: Management and development of the eligible river and its corridor cannot be 

modifi ed, subject to valid existing rights, to the degree that its eligibility or tentative classifi cation would 

be affected.

Attachment: Map D-1 Wild and Scenic Rivers
D-8 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Wild and Scenic Rivers Map D-1
Appendix D. Wild and Scenic River Review D-9

Wild and Scenic River Review

Table D.1. Classification Criteria for Wild, Scenic and Recreational River Area1

Attribute Wild Scenic Recreational

Water Resources 

Development

Free of impoundment. Free of impoundment. Some existing impoundment 

or diversion. 

The existence of low 

dams, diversions, or other 

modifications of the waterway 

is acceptable, provided the 

waterway remains generally 

natural and riverine in 

appearance.

Shoreline Development Essentially primitive. Little or no 

evidence of human activity.

Largely primitive and 

undeveloped. No substantial 

evidence of human activity.

Some development. 

Substantial evidence of 

human activity.

The presence of a few 

inconspicuous structures, 

particularly those of historic or 

cultural value, is acceptable. 

The presence of small 

communities or dispersed 

dwellings or farm structures is 

acceptable. 

The presence of extensive 

residential development and a 

few commercial structures is 

acceptable. 

A limited amount of domestic 

livestock grazing or hay 

production is acceptable. Little 

or no evidence of past timber 

harvest. No ongoing timber 

harvest. 

The presence of grazing, hay 

production, or row crops is 

acceptable.

Evidence of past or ongoing 

timber harvest is acceptable, 

provided the forest appears 

natural from the riverbank

Lands may have been 

developed for the full range of 

agricultural and forestry uses. 

May show evidence of past 

and ongoing timber harvest. 

Accessibility Generally inaccessible except 

by trail.

Accessible in places by road Readily accessible by road or 

railroad.

No roads, railroads or other 

provision for vehicular travel 

within the river area. A few 

existing roads leading to the 

boundary of the river area is 

acceptable.

Roads may occasionally reach or 

bridge the river. The existence of 

short stretches of conspicuous 

or longer stretches of 

inconspicuous roads or railroads 

is acceptable.

The existence of parallel 

roads or railroads on one or 

both banks as well as bridge 

crossings and other river 

access points is acceptable.

Water Quality Meets or exceeds federal 

criteria or federally approved 

state standards for aesthetics 

for propagation of fish and 

wildlife normally adapted to 

the habitat of the river and for 

primary contact recreation 

(swimming), except where 

exceeded by natural conditions

No criteria prescribed by the Act. The Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act Amendments of 1972 have made it a national goal that 

all waters of the United States be made fishable and swimmable. 

Therefore, rivers will not be precluded from scenic or recreational 

classification because of poor water quality at the time of their 

study, provided a water quality improvement plan exists or is being 

developed in compliance with applicable federal and state laws.

1

 Table 1 taken from: Diedrich, J., Thomas C. 1999. The Wild & Scenic River Study Process. U.S. Forest 

Service and National Park Service.
D-10 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Wild and Scenic River Review

Table D.2. Eligible Rivers within the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

River Name

River Segment 

Description

Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values

Tentative 

Classifi cation

FWS River 

Segment 

Length 

SceneryRecreationGeologyFishWildlifeCulturalOther ValuesWildScenicRecreational(Miles)*

Blackwater 

River

Segment within the 

CVNWR between 

Rt.32 and Camp 70 

Rd.

X X X X X X X 12.8

North Branch 

Blackwater 

River

Segment between rt 

32. and confluence of 

Blackwater River

X X X X X X 4.9

Little 

Blackwater 

River

Segment from 

headwaters in 

northern Canaan 

Valley to confluence 

with Glade Run

X X X X X 6.1

Sand Run

Segment from 

border of refuge 

and Timberline 

development to 

confluence with 

Blackwater River

X X X X X 1.6

Glade Run

Segment from 

headwaters to 

confluence with Little 

Black and Blackwater 

Rivers

X X X X X 5.6

* Segment lengths are approximate.
Process for Establishing Refuge Focal 

Species and Priority Habitats for 

Management under Alternative B

Blue Crayfish

USFWS

Appendix E
Appendix E. Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management under Alternative B E-1

Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management under Alternative B

Introduction and Background

Biological goals and objectives for managing species and habitats serve as the foundation for developing 

respective refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) and Habitat Management Plans. What follows is 

the description of a process the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) CCP planning team used to 

determine which species and associated habitats should be a management priority on this refuge.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is entrusted by congress to conserve and protect migratory birds 

and fish, federally listed threatened and endangered species, inter-jurisdictional fish, wetlands, and certain 

marine mammals. These are collectively and individually referred to as federal trust resources. In addition to 

this mission to protect and conserve federal trust resources, each refuge has one or more purposes for which 

it was established that further guide its management goals and objectives. Finally, there are also a multitude 

of laws, mandates, policies, and conservation plans at various geographic scales, which influence refuge 

management priorities.

During the CCP process for Canaan Valley refuge, the planning team identified which species of conservation 

concern and associated habitats should be a focus for refuge management. In making this determination, the 

team considered the factors noted above, as well as the refuge’s geographic location, local site capabilities, 

species’ relative abundance and distribution, respective specie’s status in national and regional conservation 

plans, and a determination of what the most important and effective ecological contribution the refuge could 

make within the context of the managed lands in the local landscape (Monongahela National Forest and state 

lands) and the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). Lastly, species were selected because their 

habitat needs broadly represent the habitat requirements for many other native wildlife dependent on these 

same habitat types, including other federal trust resources. The selected species are referred to herein, and in 

the CCP, as “refuge focal species.”

Following are the details used in the process to identify priority resources of concern, and ultimately, the 

refuge focal species and the habitat management priorities to benefit these resources. For each step, a brief 

synopsis is given, followed by a discussion of the details of each step.

1.0) Collect Information and Data

1.1) Identify Legal Mandates, Policies, and Establishing Purposes of the Refuge

1.2) Compile Matrix of Potential Resources of Concern Based on National, Regional, State, and Local 

Plans

1.3) Gather Expert Opinion

1.4) Develop Maps

1.5) Conduct Baseline Wildlife Surveys

2.0) Identify Resources of Concern and Biological Goals and Objectives

1.0) Collect Information and Data

1.1) Legal Mandates, Policies and Establishing Purpose of the Refuge

Legal mandates for the Refuge System along with a refuge’s establishing legislation and Service policies 

guide the process for selecting resources of concern. The Canaan Valley refuge was established under the 

Emergency Wetlands Resource Act (1986), and the Fish and Wildlife Act (1956). 

The Environmental Assessment (EA), used to establish the refuge, states that the refuge was proposed 

to “insure the ecological integrity of the Valley and the continued availability of its wetland, botanical, and 

wildlife resources to the citizens of West Virginia and the United States.” 
E-2 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management under Alternative B

Supporting Discussion:

Legal Mandates:

The establishing authorities allowing purchase of lands for Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge are:

1. The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S. C. 3901 (b)):

“...for the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and 

to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions.”

2. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742 f(a)(4)):

“...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife 

resources....”

3. Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715d)

“...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.”

The 1994 EA for establishing Canaan Valley refuge states that to support the purpose of the refuge system, 

each refuge emphasizes contributions it can make that support long-range objectives, given in priority order: 

1. To preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystem (when practicable) all species of animals and 

plants that are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered.

2. To perpetuate the migratory bird resource.

3. To preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and fl ora on refuge lands.

4. To provide an understanding and appreciation of fi sh and wildlife ecology and people’s role in their 

environment, and to provide refuge visitors with high quality, safe, wholesome, and enjoyable recreational 

experiences oriented toward wildlife to the extent that these activities are compatible with the purposes 

for which the refuge was established.

Additionally the EA goes on to state that “Management activities in Canaan Valley will for the most part be 

related to monitoring and documenting successional change. In limited areas, active management may be 

pursued for specific purposes such as woodcock research and management, and wildlife habitat enhancement...

.A determination to adopt any management practice would come only after careful consideration of its effect 

on floral and faunal components at the specific site, and its effect on the overall integrity and character of the 

valley.”

More specific objectives were detailed in the 1994 EA and Station Management Plan:

1. Preserve in perpetuity approximately 28,000 acres of relict boreal habitat and a unique ecosystem, with 

its diverse fl ora and fauna.

2. Provide a unique educational opportunity by assisting with fi eld studies of environmental interrelationships and stimulating curiosity of living things by offering a variety of fi rst-hand outdoor 

experiences.

3. Provide for bird watching, photography, nature study, hunting, fi shing, and other wildlife-oriented 

activities consistent with other refuge objectives.

4. Establish a woodcock research and management area consistent with other Refuge objectives.

5. Provide and develop habitat for waterfowl consistent with preservation of existing ecosystems.
Appendix E. Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management under Alternative B E-3

Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management under Alternative B

Service Policies:

Section 4(a)(3) of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Improvement Act) states, “(A) each 

refuge shall be managed to fulfill the Mission of the System, as well as the specific purposes for which that 

refuge was established.....”

The Improvement Act further states, “In administering the System, the Secretary shall....ensure that the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.....” To meet this mandate the Service developed a Biological 

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy (Integrity Policy) to provide implementation guidance 

(601 FW 3). The Integrity Policy uses historical conditions and the evaluation of a refuge at various landscape 

scales, including refuge, ecosystem, national, and international scales, to determine the integrity and 

environmental health of a refuge’s lands and its contribution to biological diversity.

1. 2) Matrix of Potential Resources of Concern Based on National, Regional, State, and Local 

Conservation Plans

An overall list of species and habitats of conservation concern which were known or likely to occur on the 

refuge was developed during planning stages of the CCP. The list was compiled by the CCP planning team 

using national, regional, state, and local conservation plans. In particular the state Wildlife Conservation 

Action Plan (2006) and Natural Heritage Program lists as well as the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Forest 

Plan (2006) were used extensively to develop Appendix A.

Sources used to compile the list of resources of concern included:

■ Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 28 – Appalachian Mountains

■ Partners in Flight Physiographic Area 12

■ North American Waterfowl Management Plan

■ Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List

■ West Virginia Natural Heritage Program – State Species of Concern

■ West Virginia State Wildlife Conservation Action Plan

■ USFS Forest Plan

■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern – Region 5

■ Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture Plan

■ American Woodcock Conservation Plan

■ American Woodcock Habitat BMP’s for Central Appalachian Mountains Region

■ Brooks Bird Club Migratory Bird Observatory data

1.3) Gather Expert Opinion

Between January and July of 2007 four meetings were held to discuss key issues for the refuge CCP. The 

purpose was to gather local experts together to obtain their individual opinions on the refuge’s role and 

opportunities for management relative to the four topics proposed. These topics were: migratory birds, 

deer management, rare plant species, and visitor services. Attending the meetings were individuals from 

state and federal agencies, non-profit organizations and universities. Meetings helped the refuge share and 

gather existing data, discuss regional perspectives, and help refine focal species lists. 
E-4 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management under Alternative B

1.4) Develop Maps

Maps were developed to assist with determining priority habitats and focal species. The following is a list 

of maps used throughout the CCP process.

■ Current Vegetation Map 

■ Soils Map – U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Types 

■ National Wetlands Inventory Map

■ Ecological Land Units Map

■ Landbird Species Distribution and Breeding Bird Survey Relative Abundance Maps

1.5) Compile Existing Data

Baseline wildlife and plant surveys have been conducted to assist with determining species presence 

and abundance on the refuge since 2001. Additionally historic data was reviewed from wildlife surveys 

conducted by state and university sources. The following is a list of inventories and surveys which have 

contributed to the selection of priority habitats and focal species.

■ Anuran Call Counts

■ Marshbird Call-Back Survey

■ Waterfowl-Beaver Pond Use Survey

■ Wetland Vegetation (through cooperative work with WVDNR)

■ Terrestrial Amphibians and Small Mammals Survey

■ Bats (Anabat and limited mist net work)

■ Vernal Pool Amphibians and Stream Salamanders

■ Landbirds (breeding point count data)

■ American woodcock and Wilson’s snipe breeding survey

■ West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel Monitoring

■ Cheat Mountain Salamander Monitoring

■ Invertebrate Surveys including snail, Lepidoptera, and Odonate

■ Forest Inventory

■ Fish Survey (through cooperative work with the West Virginia Departments of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Protection)

■ Rare Plant Inventory
Appendix E. Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management under Alternative B E-5

Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management under Alternative B

2.0) Identify Resources of Concern and Biological Goals and Objectives

Following the procedure outlined in the Service Manual “Identifying Refuge Resources of Concern and 

Management Priority” (USFWS 2007) the CCP Team integrated the information gathered (as described 

above) and moved through the process to develop a list of potential species of concern. This procedure 

followed multiple steps to take the biological information available and evaluate it based on the variety 

of plans, policies, agency mission, refuge purposes, and regional context. The overall list was further 

refined to eliminate species and plant communities for which the refuge had or could have little significant 

management or conservation contribution. 

The planning team determined the most appropriate biological goals and objectives for the refuge based 

on Refuge System policy, and then found commonalities with the state partners in meeting state wildlife 

habitat goals. The freshwater wetlands and resources of concern that were identified as priorities for 

the refuge are a direct overlap with state wetland goals. The mixed spruce-fir/northern hardwood forest 

contributes to state goals for the priority landbird species that were chosen. This habitat type is also 

relevant for other state species of concern. The mixed forest will provide connectivity of habitats for 

mammals with large home ranges and some rare species and protects water quality and aquatic resources 

through riparian habitat management and restoration. The existing and proposed early successional 

habitat fits in with state and regional priorities for wildlife associated with this successional stage.

The final results of this process can be found in the alternatives chapter (Chapter 3), where we structure 

all our habitat management goals and objectives around refuge focal species and habitat management 

priorities. 
Refuge Operations and Needs 

System (RONS) and Service Asset 

Management Maintenance System 

(SAMMS)

Youth Conservation Corps

Erin Holmes/USFWS

Appendix F
Appendix F. Refuge Operations and Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset Management Maintenance System (SAMMS) F-1

Refuge Operations and Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset Management Maintenance System (SAMMS)

Table F.1. Refuge Operations and Needs System (RONS) table for Fiscal Year 2009.

Project 

# Project Title

Regional 

Rank

Station 

Rank

Budget 

Category

Year 1 

Cost 

Recurring 

Cost FTE’s

Alternatives

ABCD

FY08-

2847

Improve refuge operations 

and visitor services 25 1 People 62,419 62,419 1 X X X

FY08-

2941

Improve inventories and 

monitoring of refuge biological 

program

80 2 People 77,321 77,321 1 X X X

FY08-

4886

Improve visitor services 

and volunteer coordination 

(outdoor recreation planner) 

3 People 94,588 94,588 1 X X X

FY08-

4921

Improve and maintain refuge 

facilities and equipment 

(facility services assistant)

4 People 31,662 31,662 .5 X X X

FY08-

4930

Improve and support public 

use and habitat management 

programs (refuge operations 

specialist)

112 5 People 94,588 94,588 1 X X

FY08-

5048

Improve refuge public use 

program (purchase small 

excavator)

6 25,000 X X X

FY??-

9999

Improve and support public 

use and habitat management 

programs (visitor services 

professional)

7 People 77,321 77,321 1 X

FY??-

5055

Improve monitoring, adaptive 

management, and planning 

within the refuge biological 

program (biological science 

technician)

8 People 77,321 77,321 1 X

FY??-

9999

Improve interpretation and 

informational signage for 

public uses on the refuge

50,000 X X X

FY??-

9999

Conduct baseline inventory 

and monitoring projects 

which may include amphibian 

nesting and anuran breeding 

surveys

40,000 X X X

FY??-

9999

Improve and maintain refuge 

facilities and equipment 

(permanent full time 

maintenance worker)

64,000 64,000 1 X

Improve refuge resource 

protection, facility security 

and public safety (permanent 

full time law enforcement 

officer)

$200,000 $100,000 X
F-2 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Refuge Operations and Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset Management Maintenance System (SAMMS)

Table F.2. Service Asset Management Maintenance System (SAMMS) table from Fiscal Year 2009.

Project # Project Title

Regional 

Rank

Station 

Rank

Budget 

Category

Year 1 

Cost 

Recurring 

Cost 

Alternatives

ABCD

05138409 Remove abandoned barn - Cooper 

Tract 51 3 6 22,000 X X X X

05138407 Remove abandoned barn on the 

Cooper Tract 49 81 5 19,470 X X X X

Construct a bridge over Sand Run 

to facilitate trail connectivity 50,000 X X

99999 Construct observation platform / 

photo blind on A-Frame Road 15,000 X X X

Connect Beall Trail to Middle Valley 

Trail 40,000 X X X

99999 Connect Swinging Bridge Trail to 

Cortland Road 1,000,000 X X

99999

Construct observation platform 

where A-Frame Road enters the 

refuge

50,000 X X X

99999

Improve two launch sites for 

boating - Old Timberline Road and 

Camp 70 Road

25,000 X X X

99999 Construct floating platform for 

student pond studies 20,000 X X X

99999 Construct environmental 

education pavilion 300,000 X X X

99999 Construct larger meeting room in 

visitor center 1,000,000 X X X

99999 Construct deer exclosures to 

protect balsam seedlings 500,000 X X X

99999 Construct five 1-acre deer 

exclosures for refuge research 25,000 X X X

99999 Construct kiosk and directional 

signage for boat access points 8,000 X X X

99999

Remove 20 miles of old logging 

roads on Cabin Mountain to 

restore upland habitat

200,000 X X X

99999

Remove and restore portions of 

Camp 70 (south) rail grade (3.46 

mi) to restore hydrology. 

150,000 X X X

99999

Remove and restore portions of 

East Valley rail grade (2.11 mi) to 

restore hydrology

130,000 X X X

99999

Remove and restore portions of 

the Little Blackwater rail grade 

(0.55 mi) to restore hydrology

33,000 X X X

99999

Remove and restore portions of 

Middle Ridge West rail grade (2.1 

mi) to restore hydrology

125,000 X X X
Appendix F. Refuge Operations and Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset Management Maintenance System (SAMMS) F-3

Refuge Operations and Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset Management Maintenance System (SAMMS)

Project # Project Title

Regional 

Rank

Station 

Rank

Budget 

Category

Year 1 

Cost 

Recurring 

Cost 

Alternatives

ABCD

99999

Construct additional signs and 

replace worn out interpretive signs 

on Freeland Trail

5,000 X X X

99999

Construct approx. a 500-ft 

pedestrian/bicycle bridge to 

connect Brown Mountain 

Overlook and Camp 70 trails. 

40,000 X X X

99999 Construct interpretive signs for 

two habitat demonstration areas 10,000 X X

99999

Construct two bridges over the 

Blackwater River in strategic 

locations to facilitate trail 

connectivity

700,000 X X X

99999

Construct a trail between Brown 

Mountain Overlook and A-Frame 

Road (North Rail Grade Crossing)

800,000 X
Staffing Charts

Tracking walk

USFWS

Appendix G
G-1

Refuge Staffing Charts for Alternatives

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Current Approved Staff (Alternative A)

Refuge Manager

GS-0485-13 

Office Automation 

Clerk

GS-0326-4/5

Term

Wildlife Biologist

GS-0486-12

Wildlife Biologist

GS-0486-9/11

Park Ranger 

(Visitor Services)

GS-0025-5

Engineering Equipment 

Operator

WG-5176-10

Park Ranger 

(Visitor Services)

GS-0025-7/9/11

Park Ranger

(LE/Refuge)

GS-0025-7/9/11

Refuge Manager 

(Deputy)

GS-0485-11/12

Appendix G. Refuge Staffing
G-2 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Refuge Staffing Charts for Alternatives

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Proposed Staff (Alternative B)*

Refuge Manager

GS-0485-13

Office Automation 

Clerk

GS-0303-5/6

Wildlife Biologist

GS-0486-12

Wildlife Biologist

GS-0486-9/11

Park Ranger

(Visitor Services)

GS-0025-7/9

Park Ranger 

(Visitor Services) 

GS-0025-5/7/9

Maintenance Worker

WG-4749-7

Permanent Seasonal

Biological 

Technician

GS-0486-7

Engineering Equipment 

Operator

WG-5176-10

Park Ranger

(Visitor Services)

GS-0025-7/9/11

Refuge Operations 

Specialist

GS-0485-5/7/9

Refuge Manager 

(Deputy)

GS-0485-11/12

Park Ranger 

(LE/Refuge)

GS-0025-7/9/11

*Complies with FY2009 RONS list (see Appendix F).
G-3

Refuge Staffing Charts for Alternatives

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Proposed Staff (Alternative C) 

Refuge Manager

GS-0485-13

Office Automation 

Clerk

GS-0303-5/6

Wildlife Biologist

GS-0486-12

Wildlife Biologist

GS-0486-9/11

Maintenance 

Worker

WG-4749-7

Maintenance Worker

WG-4749-7

Permanent Seasonal

Engineering 

Equipment Operator

WG-5176-10

Park Ranger

(Visitor Services)

GS-0025-7/9/11

Park Ranger (Visitor 

Services Professional) 

GS-0025-7/9

Park Ranger

(Visitor Services 

Professional)

GS-0025-7/9

Park Ranger 

(Visitor Services 

Professional) 

GS-0025-5/7/9

Refuge Operations 

Specialist

GS-0485-5/7/9

Park Ranger 

(LE/Refuge)

GS-0025-7/9/11

Refuge Manager 

(Deputy)

GS-0485-11/12

Appendix G. Refuge Staffing
G-4 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Refuge Staffing Charts for Alternatives

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge

Proposed Staff (Alternative D)

Refuge Manager

GS-0485-13

Office Automation 

Clerk 

GS-0303-5/6

Park Ranger 

(LE/Refuge)

GS-0025-7/9/11

Park Ranger

(LE/Refuge)

GS-0025-7/9 Wildlife Biologist

GS-0486-12

Wildlife Biologist

GS-0486-9/11

Engineering Equipment 

Operator

WG-5176-10

Maintenance Worker

WG-4749-7

Permanent Seasonal

Park Ranger

(Visitor Services)

GS-0025-7/9/11

Park Ranger

(Visitor Services)

GS-0025-7/9

Park Ranger

(Visitor Services)

GS-0025-5/7/9

Refuge Manager 

(Deputy)

GS-0485-11/12
Economic Impacts of Each Alternative

Sundew (Drosera sp.) species of concern

Ken Sturm/USFWS

Appendix H
H-1

Introduction

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires all units of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System to be managed under a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The CCP must describe the 

desired future conditions of a refuge and provide long range guidance and management direction to achieve 

refuge purposes. Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge), located in Tucker County, West Virginia 

is in the process of developing a range of management goals, objectives, and strategies for the CCP. The 

CCP for the refuge must contain an analysis of expected effects associated with current and proposed refuge 

management strategies. 

For refuge CCP planning, an economic analysis provides a means of estimating how current management (No 

Action alternative) and proposed management activities affect the local economy. This type of analysis provides 

two critical pieces of information: 1) it illustrates a refuge’s contribution to the local community; and 2) it can 

help in determining whether economic effects are or are not a real concern in choosing among management 

alternatives. 

It is important to note that the economic value of a refuge encompasses more than just the impacts of the 

regional economy. Refuges also provide substantial nonmarket values (values for items not exchanged 

in established markets) such as maintaining endangered species, preserving wetlands, educating future 

generations, and adding stability to the ecosystem (Carver and Caudill, 2007). However, quantifying these 

types of nonmarket values is beyond the scope of this study. 

This report first presents a description of the local community and economy near the refuge. Next, the methods 

used to conduct a regional economic impact analysis are described. An analysis of the final CCP management 

strategies that could affect stakeholders and residents and the local economy is then presented. The refuge 

management activities of economic concern in this analysis are:

■ Refuge purchases of goods and services within the local community.

■ Refuge personnel salary spending.

■ Spending in the local community by refuge visitors.

■ Revenues generated from Refuge Revenue Sharing. 

Regional Economic Setting

The Canaan Valley region is a unique mountain valley, with habitats, plants and animals typically found 

at higher latitudes. The refuge works to preserve the unique wetlands and uplands of this high elevation, 

moist valley (USDOI, 2008). Canaan Valley refuge is located in Tucker County, West Virginia, in the 

northeastern portion of the state known as the Potomac Highlands Region. In 1994, with the purchase of 86 

acres, Canaan Valley refuge became the nation’s 500th refuge. Currently, the refuge consists of over 16,000 

acres. Additionally, close to 10,000 acres remain within its acquisition boundary. The acquisition boundary 

encompasses most of the wetlands and unique habitats of the valley. Acquisition will continue, dependent on 

willing sellers and availability of funds. 

The refuge is within a few hours drive of several large metropolitan areas including Pittsburgh and 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, MD and Charlottesville and Richmond, Virginia 

(Tucker County Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2008). For the purposes of an economic impact analysis, a 

region (and its economy) is typically defined as all counties within a 30–60 mile radius of the impact area. Only 

spending that takes place within this local area is included as stimulating changes in economic activity. The size 

of the region influences both the amount of spending captured and the multiplier effects. While the refuge is 

located in Tucker County, the city of Elkins (located in adjacent Randolph County) is economically important to 

the refuge as well. Most of the refuge personnel live and approximately twenty five percent of the refuge nonsalary purchases are made in Elkins. Randolph County is the largest county in West Virginia with a total area 

of 1,040 square miles (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Elkins is located in northern tip of Randolph County, 34 

miles southwest of the refuge. The refuge’s economic ties to Randolph County do not extend past Elkins. Based 

Appendix H: Economic Impacts of Each Alternative

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-2 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

on the relative self-containment in terms of retail trade, Tucker County and the city of Elkins were assumed to 

comprise the local economic region for this analysis. 

Population

Table H.1 shows the population estimates and trends for the regional area and communities near the refuge. 

In 2000, the city of Elkins and Tucker County were similar in terms of population size with 7,032 residents 

in Elkins and only a few hundred more (7,321) in Tucker County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Davis, Thomas 

and Parsons are the principal communities in Tucker County located near the refuge. In 2000, Tucker County 

was the third least populated county in the state and accounted for less than one percent of the state’s total 

population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). The town of Parsons was the only community that resembled the 

state’s 0.8% population growth rate, with a 0.7% population increase from 1990-2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2008). Elkins and Tucker County experienced population declines of approximately 5% between 1990-2000 

while the smaller communities of Davis and Thomas experienced larger declines of over 21% (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2008). 

Table H.1. Local and regional population estimates and characteristics.

Population in 2000 Population change 

Residents Persons per square mile Median age 1990 to 2000

West Virginia 1,808,344 75.1 38.9 +0.8%

Tucker County 7,321 17.5 42.0 -5.3%

Communities near refuge

 Elkins (Randolph County) 7,032 2,207.7 38.8 -5.5%

 Davis (Tucker County) 624 546.0 41.5 -21.9%

 Thomas (Tucker County) 452 753.6 47.8 -21.1%

 Parsons (Tucker County) 1,463 1,332.5 39.9 +0.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2008), Census 2000 Summary File (SF-1)

The city of Elkins is located in the heart of West Virginia’s Mountain Highlands and serves as the recreation 

gateway community to the Monongahela National Forest with nearby access to the refuge, state parks, forests 

and natural landmarks (City of Elkins, 2008). Situated on a bend in the Tygart Valley River, Elkins was 

founded by Senators Henry Gassaway Davis and Stephen B. Elkins in 1890 and became the Randolph county 

seat in 1899 (City of Elkins, 2008). Historically, the area was dominated by agriculture (West Virginia Rails-toTrails Council, 2002). The senators were responsible for bringing the WV Central and Pittsburgh Railway into 

Elkins which opened the surrounding territory to development (City of Elkins, 2008). The completion of the 

railway in the late 1890’s, made extraction of the large reserves of coal, limestone, shale, and timber resources 

possible and encouraged industrial development of the area (West Virginia Rails-to-Trails Council, 2002). 

Approximately 41% of Tucker County, known as the “Top of the Mountain State,” is publicly owned land. 

Parsons, the county seat, is located on Shaver’s Fork of the Cheat River and is home to 1,463 residents. The 

town was incorporated in 1893 and named for Ward Parsons, a pioneer who owned the land on which the town 

was built (West Virginia Rails-to-Trails Council, 2002). Davis, the highest incorporated town in the state at an 

elevation of 3,200, consists of 624 residents. The town has a longstanding tradition with the lumber industry, 

known in its early years as “Canada,” consisting of a dense forest of spruce and hardwoods (Town of Davis, 

West Virginia, 2006). Thomas, home to 452 residents is only 2.5 miles from Davis. Like many towns in the 

region, Thomas has its roots in the coal industry. By 1892, Davis Coal and Coke was one of the largest in the 

world, employing 1,600 people in Thomas (Tucker County Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2006).

The Census Bureau (2008) reports that in 2000, West Virginia’s population consisted of 95% white persons not 

of Hispanic or Latino origin. Tucker County (98.9%), and the communities of Elkins (96.9%), Davis (97.9%), 

Thomas (98.7%) and Parsons (99%) all had averages greater than the state average in 2000. The percentage 

of residents identifying themselves as Black or African American, American Indian or Native Alaskan, and 

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-3

Asian was 2.2% in Elkins and less than 0.5% in Tucker County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Ancestry patterns 

across Elkins, Davis, Thomas and Parsons were similar to each other with heavy German, Irish and English 

influences (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). 

Approximately 71.5% of West Virginia residents 25 years and older are high school graduates. Tucker County 

(75.4%) and the communities of Elkins (79.5%), Davis (76.7%), Thomas (84.5%) and Parsons (77.4%) all displayed 

rates greater than the state average. In 2000, the percentage of residents who held a bachelor or advanced 

degree was 14.8% for the state of West Virginia while the national average was 24.4% (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2008). Elkins (23.4%) exceeded to state average while Tucker County (10.5%) and the communities of Davis 

(9.4%), Thomas (10.1%), and Parsons (11.8%). were all less then the state average (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).

Employment and Income 

Employment estimates (2006) for Elkins, Tucker County and the state of West Virginia are shown in Table H.2. 

Generally, Elkins and Tucker County resembled the state’s percentage of employment in each industry. Two 

main differences were the employment in the accommodation and food industry in Tucker County was almost 

10% higher than the state average and Elkins employment in educational, health and social services industries 

was over 14% higher than the state average. Government employment accounted for almost 17% of West 

Virginia’s total employment in 2006, a greater percentage than any other sector. Government was also the 

largest employer in Tucker County and the second largest employer in Elkins in 2006. In 2006, construction, 

manufacturing, retail trade and the finance, insurance, real estate and information industries were other main 

industries providing employment in Tucker County. Other main industries providing employment in Elkins in 

2006 were retail trade and the arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services (U.S. Census, 

2008).

Table H.2. 2006 Full-time and part-time employment for West Virginia, Tucker County, and Elkins.

 West Virginia Tucker County Elkins**

 Total non-farm employment (jobs) 860,554 3,697 5,791

Percent of Employment by Industry

Ag, forestry, fish & hunting 0.5% (D)* 2.5%

Mining & Utilities 4.4% (D)* --**

Construction 6.6% 8.1% 5.3%

Manufacturing 7.1% 8.2% 10%

Wholesale trade 3.1% (D)* 3%

Transportation & warehousing 3.0% 2.8% 2.7%

Retail trade 12.7% 10.4% 11%

Finance, insurance, real estate, & information 7.4% 7.6% 5.6%

Services

 Professional, management, admin., & waste 9.4% (D)* 8.2%

 Health care, social assistance, & educational 14.0% 11.1% 28.6%

 Arts, entertainment, & recreation 1.9% 1.3% --**

 Accommodation & food 7.1% 17.0% 10.2%

 Other services 6.2% 7.0% 4.9%

Government (federal, state, & local) 16.8% 19.0% 17.8%

Source: State and County level data from U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

Regional Economic Information System 2008. Self-employment is not included. 

(D)*: Not shown to avoid disclosure of confi dential information, but the estimates for these items are 

included in the totals

**Elkins data from U.S. Census (2008), Arts, Entertainment & recreation included in Accommodation 

and food, Mining was not reported

Appendix H: Economic Impacts of Each Alternative

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-4 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

U.S Census Bureau (2008) data for median household income, unemployment and percentage of persons living 

below poverty are shown in Table H.3. As shown in Table H.3, Tucker County and all the communities included 

in the study area were below the state and national averages for median household income. The national 

average unemployment rate in 2000 was 3.7%, and West Virginia’s average unemployment rate was 4.0% in the 

same year. Thomas (3.6%) was the only community in the study area with an unemployment rate lower than 

the state and national averages. The percent of population below the federal poverty line is an indicator of the 

economic distress within a community. In 1999, the national average of individuals living in poverty was 12.4%. 

West Virginia’s average was 17.9%. Tucker County (18.1%) exceeded both the state and national averages. 

Elkins (14.4%), Davis (14.6%) and Thomas (13.7%) were greater than the national average, but less than the 

county and state averages. Parsons (18.7%) has the greatest percentage of its residents living below poverty of 

the towns in the study area (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). (Table H.3)

Table H.3. Income, unemployment, and poverty estimates.

Median Household 

Income (1999)

Percent 

Unemployed (2000)

Percent of Persons 

below Poverty (1999)

United States Average $41,994 3.7% 12.4%

West Virginia $29,696 4.0% 17.9%

Tucker County $26,250 4.2% 18.1%

Elkins (Randolph County) $26,906 4.7% 14.4%

Communities near refuge 

Davis (Tucker County) $25,221 5.2% 14.6%

Thomas (Tucker County) $22,443 3.6% 13.7%

Parsons (Tucker County) $26,424 4.3% 18.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2008)

Recreation and Tourism 

The travel and tourism industry continues to be a significant and growing contributor to the West Virginia 

economy. According to recent report on the economic impact of travel on West Virginia, travel-generated 

spending totaled over $3.97 billion, supporting 44,000 jobs with $854 million in earnings (Dean Runyan 

Associates, 2007). According to the report, travel spending in West Virginia increased by 8.8% per year from 

2000 to 2006. In 2006, travel generated earnings accounted for 12.4% of total earnings in Tucker County and 

1.6% of total earnings in Randolph County while travel generated employment accounted for 19.1% of total 

employment in Tucker County and 3.4% of total employment in Randolph County (Dean Runyan Associates, 

2007). 

With many acres of public land, including the refuge, the Monongahela National Forest, and Blackwater Falls 

and Canaan Valley Resort State Parks, Tucker County and the greater Canaan Valley offer numerous outdoor 

recreation activities. Popular activities include hunting, camping, mountain biking, fishing, whitewater rafting 

and canoeing. Winter recreation activities are another major attraction in Tucker County with Canaan Valley 

Resort State Park and Timberline Resort for downhill skiing, and White Grass Resort for cross country skiing 

and snowshoeing. On average, the resorts receive between 150-200 inches of snowfall each year. (Tucker 

County Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2006). Details about the economic contributions associated with 

wildlife viewing, fishing, and hunting in West Virginia are provided below. 

Wildlife Viewing

Abundant opportunities are available throughout West Virginia for formal wildlife education or recreational 

viewing. Wildlife viewing can include the activities of observing, identifying, photographing. The 2006 

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation (FHWAR) asks respondents about 

wildlife viewing around their homes and trips taken for the primary purpose of wildlife watching (USDOI et al 

2007). In 2006, there were a total of 743,000 wildlife watching participants (residents and nonresidents) in West 

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-5

Virginia with over 4 million days of participation away from home. Spending associated with wildlife watching 

in West Virginia totaled $241.6 million in 2006; of which 56% ($136.1 million) were trip related expenditures and 

44% ($105.5 million) were spent on equipment and other expenses (USDOI et al. 2007). 

According to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) report on the national and state economic impacts 

of wildlife watching (USDOI & USFWS 2003) accounting for the multiplier effect, spending by resident and 

nonresident wildlife watchers in West Virginia in 2001 generated; $252.5 million in output, $74.7 million in 

wages, 3,946 jobs, and $6.4 million in state sales tax revenue. This accounted for 0.5% of total employment and 

0.4% of employment income in West Virginia (USDOI et al. 2003). 

Hunting 

The FHWAR indicates that hunting participation in the U.S. declined from 14.1 million in 1991 to 13 million in 

2005 (USDOI & USFWS 2007). Data from the 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2006 FHWAR indicate that the declines 

were attributable to declines in both recruitment of new participants and retention of former participants. 

According to Curtis Taylor, chief of the Wildlife Resources Section of the West Virginia Division of Natural 

Resources, hunting numbers in West Virginia have stayed fairly consistent and are not following the declining 

national trend (Darst, 2008). Hunting on the refuge has stayed consistent as well with an average of 1,837 

hunting permits issued annually. 

In 2006, there were a total of 269,000 resident and non resident hunters in West Virginia. Residents of West 

Virginia accounted for 72% of total hunters and 86% of the 3.9 million days of hunting in West Virginia 

(USDOI et al. 2007). According to USDOI and others (2007), hunting related expenditures by state residents 

and nonresidents in West Virginia totaled $284.5 million in 2006; of which 28% ($79.4 million) were trip 

related expenditures and 72% ($205.1 million) were spent on equipment and other hunting-related expenses 

(i.e., membership dues, licenses, and land leasing). According to a report by Southwick Associates (2007a) 

accounting for the multiplier effect, spending by resident and nonresident hunters in West Virginia generated; 

$453.5 million in output, $133.2 million in income, 6,337 jobs, and $29.6 million in state and local sales taxes 

in 2006.

Fishing 

The FHWAR indicates that fishing participation in the U.S. declined from 35.6 million in 1991 to 34.1 million in 

2005 (USDOI et al. 2007). Similar to hunting, the FHWAR data indicate that the declines were attributable to 

declines in both recruitment of new participants and retention of former participants. 

In 2006, more than 376,000 people in West Virginia participated in freshwater fishing. West Virginia residents 

accounted for 77% of total freshwater anglers and 94% of the 6.9 million days of freshwater fishing in West 

Virginia (USDOI et al. 2007). Direct spending in West Virginia by state resident and nonresident freshwater 

anglers totaled $334 million in 2006; of which 46% ($154 million) were trip related expenditures and 54% ($180 

million) were spent on equipment and other expenses (USDOI et al. 2007). According to a report by Southwick 

Associates (2007b) accounting for the multiplier effect, spending by resident and nonresident anglers in West 

Virginia generated; $485.3 million in output, $137.9 million in income, 6,617 jobs, and $29.2 million in state and 

local sales taxes in 2006.

Economic Impacts of Current and Proposed Management Activities

Methods for a Regional Economic Impact Analysis

Economic input-output models are commonly used to determine how economic sectors will and will not be 

affected by demographic, economic, and policy changes. The economic impacts of the management alternatives 

for Canaan Valley refuge were estimated using IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning), a regional inputoutput modeling system developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. IMPLAN is a 

computerized database and modeling system that provides a regional input-output analysis of economic activity 

in terms of 10 industrial groups involving more than five hundred economic sectors (Olson and Lindall, 1999). 

The IMPLAN model draws upon data collected by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group from multiple federal and 

state sources including the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the U.S. Census 

Appendix H: Economic Impacts of Each Alternative

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-6 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Bureau (Olson and Lindall, 1999). The year 2006 IMPLAN Tucker County data profile and the Elkins area zip 

code data profiles (26241 and 26276, and 26283) were used in this study. The IMPLAN county level employment 

data estimates were found to be comparable to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, Regional Economic Information System data for the year 2006. 

Because of the way industries interact in an economy, a change in the activity of one industry affects activity 

levels in several other industries. For example, if more visitors come to an area, local businesses will purchase 

extra labor and supplies to meet the increase in demand for additional services. The income and employment 

resulting from visitor purchases from local businesses represent the direct effects of visitor spending within 

the economy. Direct effects measure the net amount of spending that stays in the local economy after the first 

round of spending, the amount that doesn’t stay in the local economy is termed a leakage (Carver and Caudill, 

2007). In order to increase supplies to local businesses, input suppliers must also increase their purchases of 

inputs from other industries. The income and employment resulting from these secondary purchases by input 

suppliers are the indirect effects of visitor spending within the county. The input suppliers’ new employees use 

their incomes to purchase goods and services. The resulting increased economic activity from new employee 

income is the induced effect of visitor spending. The indirect and induced effects are known as the secondary 

effects of visitor spending. Multipliers capture the size of the secondary effects, usually as a ratio of total 

effects to direct effects (Stynes, 1998). The sums of the direct and secondary effects describe the total economic 

impact of visitor spending in the local economy.

For each alternative, regional economic effects from the IMPLAN model are reported for the following 

categories: 

■ Local Output represents the change in local sales or revenue.

■ Personal Income represents the change in employee income in the region that is generated from 

a change in regional output. 

■ Employment represents the change in number of jobs generated in the region from a change 

in regional output. IMPLAN estimates for employment include both full time and part time 

workers, which are measured in total jobs.

There are four alternatives evaluated in the final CCP. Alternative A satisfies the National Environmental 

Policy Act requirement of a “no action” alternative, which we define as “continuing current management.” It 

describes the refuge’s existing management priorities and activities, and serves as a baseline for comparing 

and contrasting alternatives B, C and D. Alternative B, the Service-preferred alternative, combines the actions 

that the refuge believes would most effectively achieve refuge purposes, vision and goals, and respond to public 

issues. It emphasizes management of specific refuge habitats to support focal species whose habitat needs 

benefit other species of conservation concern. Alternative C puts most management emphasis on the focal 

species which respond to early successional habitat management. Differences between alternatives are more 

distinct within the public use goals and objectives. Alternative D emphasizes management to restore where 

practicable, the distribution of natural communities in the Canaan Valley that would have resulted from natural 

processes without the influence or intervention of human settlement and management. 

The CCP provides long range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes over a 15 

year timeframe. The economic impacts reported in this report are on an annual basis in 2006 dollars. Large 

management changes often take several years to achieve. The estimates reported for alternatives B, C, and D 

represent the final economic effects after all changes in management have been implemented. 

Economic Impacts of Alternative A

Impacts from Refuge Revenue Sharing

Under provisions of the Refuge Revenue Sharing (RRS) Act, local counties receive an annual payment for lands 

that have been purchased by full fee simple acquisition by the Service. Payments are based on the greater of 

75 cents per acre or 0.75% of the fair market value of lands acquired by the Service. The exact amount of the 

annual payment depends on Congressional appropriations, which in recent years have tended to be less than 

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-7

the amount to fully fund the authorized level of payments. In fiscal year 2005 (FY05), actual RRS payments 

were 41% of authorized levels. This was the lowest RRS payment year, since FY05 payment levels have 

continually increased. However, in order to provide a conservative estimate, the FY05 authorized 41% payment 

level was used in analyzing the economic impacts of CCP alternatives. In 2005, Tucker County received a RRS 

payment of $85,247. Table H.4 shows the resulting economic impacts of RRS payments under alternative A. 

Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, RRS payments for alternative A generate total annual 

economic impacts of $103,100 in local output, $33,000 in personal income, and 1.2 jobs in the local impact area.

Table H.4. Annual impacts from Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments for Alternative A (2005$).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects $85,300 $28,400 1.0

Secondary effects $17,800 $5,500 0.2

Total economic impact $103,100 $33,900 1.2

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management

Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy

Spending associated with recreational visits to national wildlife refuges generates significant economic 

activity. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits of National 

Wildlife Refuges Visitation to Local Communities estimated the impact of national wildlife refuges on their 

local economies (Carver and Caudill, 2007). According to the report, more than 34.8 million visits were made 

to national wildlife refuges in FY 2006 which generated $1.7 billion of sales in regional economies. Accounting 

for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by national wildlife visitors generated nearly 27,000 jobs, 

and over $542.8 million in employment income (Carver and Caudill, 2007). Approximately eighty two percent 

of total expenditures were from non-consumptive activities, twelve percent from fishing, and six percent from 

hunting (Carver and Caudill, 2007). 

The refuge offers a wide variety of year round accessible recreational opportunities including big game hunting, 

upland game hunting, fishing, migratory game bird and waterfowl hunting, and non-consumptive wildlife 

viewing, education and photography opportunities. Information on state and regional trends and associated 

economic impacts of these recreational activities were presented in the previous section. This section focuses on 

the local economic impacts associated with refuge visitation. Annual refuge visitation estimates are based on 

several refuge statistic sources including: visitors entering the Visitor Center/Office, traffic counters, hunting 

permits, and general observation by refuge personnel. Annual refuge visitation estimates are on a per visit 

basis. Table H.5 summarizes estimated refuge visitation by type of visitor activity for alternative A. 

Table H.5. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for Alternative A.

Visitor activity

Total 

number 

of visits

Percentage 

of non-local 

visits (%)

Total number 

of non-local 

visits

Number of 

hours spent 

at refuge

Number of nonlocal visitor days1

Consumptive use 

Fishing 1,500 60% 900 4 450

Big game hunting 4,200 92% 3,864 8 3,864

Waterfowl and migratory bird hunting 430 95% 409 8 409

Upland game hunting 360 95% 342 8 342

Non-consumptive use 

Nature trails/ other wildlife observation/

office visits 31,000 70% 21,700 3 10,850

Total 37,490 27,215 15,915

1

 One visitor day = 8 hours.

Appendix H: Economic Impacts of Each Alternative

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-8 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

To determine the local economic impacts of visitor spending, only spending by persons living outside the local 

area of Tucker County and the city of Elkins area are included in the analysis. The rational for excluding local 

visitor spending is twofold. First, money flowing into Tucker County and Elkins from visitors living outside 

the local area (hereafter referred to as non-local visitors) is considered new money injected into the local 

economy. Second, if residents of Tucker County and Elkins visit Canaan Valley refuge more or less due to the 

management changes, they will correspondingly change their spending of their money elsewhere in Tucker 

County and Elkins, resulting in no net change to the local economy. These are standard assumptions made in 

most regional economic analyses at the local level. Refuge visitation statistics and hunting permits were used 

to determine the percentage of non-local refuge visitors. Table H.5 shows the estimated percent of non-local 

refuge visits for alternative A.

A visitor usually buys a wide range of goods and services while visiting an area. Major expenditure categories 

include lodging, restaurants, supplies, groceries, and recreational equipment rental. In this analysis we use 

the average daily visitor spending profiles from the Banking on Nature report (Carver and Caudill, 2007) that 

were derived from the 2006 NSHFWR. The NSHFWR reports trip related spending of state residents and non 

residents for several different wildlife-associated recreational activities. For each recreation activity, spending 

is reported in the categories of lodging, food and drink, transportation, and other expenses. Carver and Caudill 

(2007) calculated the average per-person per-day expenditures by recreation activity for each Service region. 

Residents were defined as living within 30 miles of the refuge and nonresidents as living outside the 30 mile 

radius (Carver and Caudill, 2007). For our analysis, non-local visitors match the nonresident spending profile 

definition. Therefore, we used the spending profiles for nonresidents for Service Region 5 (the region Canaan 

Valley refuge is located in). Nonresident average daily spending profiles for big game hunting ($48.81 per-day), 

small game hunting ($93.79 per-day), migratory bird hunting ($107.48 per-day), and fresh water fishing ($53.34 

per-day) were used to estimate non-local visitor spending for the Canaan Valley refuge hunting and fishing 

related activities. The average daily nonresident spending profile for non-consumptive wildlife recreation 

(observing, or photographing fish and wildlife) was used for non-consumptive wildlife viewing activities ($84.83 

per-day). 

The visitor spending profiles are estimated on an average per day (8 hours) basis. Because some visitors only 

spend short amounts of time on the refuge, counting each refuge visit as a full visitor day would overestimate 

the economic impact of refuge visitation. In order to properly account for the amount of spending, the annual 

number of non-local refuge visits were converted to visitor days. Refuge personnel estimate that non-local 

hunters spend a full visitor day (8 hours) on the refuge. Non-local visitors participating in fishing spend 4 hours 

(1/2 half a visitor day) while non-local visitors that view wildlife on nature trails or participate in other wildlife 

observation activities typically spend 3 hours (3/8 of a visitor day) on the refuge. Table H.5 shows the number of 

non-local visitor days by recreation activity for alternative A.

Total spending by non-local refuge visitors was determined by multiplying the average non-local visitor daily 

spending by the number of non-local visitor days. Table H.6 summarizes the total economic impacts associated 

with current non-local fishing, hunting (all types), and non-consumptive (wildlife viewing) visitation for 

alternative A. Non-local refuge visitors would spend over $1.21 million in Tucker County and the city of Elkins 

annually. This spending would directly account for $1.06 million in local output, 10.8 jobs, and $227,700 in 

personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional $216,500 

in local output, 4 jobs, and $64,800 in personal income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, 

spending by non-local visitors for alternative A would generate total economic impacts of $1.28 million in local 

output, 14.6 jobs and $292,600 in personal income. 

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-9

Table H.6. Annual impacts of non-local visitor spending for Alternative A (2006$).

 Local output Personal income

Employment

 (# jobs)

Direct effects 

Fishing $20,600 $4,300 0.2

Hunting $224,600 $43,600 1.9

Wildlife viewing $816,800 $179,900 8.7

 Direct effects total $1,060,000 $227,700 10.8

Secondary effects 

Fishing $4,200 $1,300 0.1

Hunting $41,800 $12,600 0.7

Wildlife viewing $170,500 $51,000 3

Secondary effects total $216,500 $64,800 3.8

Total effects 

Fishing $24,800 $5,600 0.3

Hunting $266,400 $56,200 2.6

Wildlife viewing $987,300 $230,800 11.7

Total economic impact $1,278,500 $292,600 14.6

Impacts from Refuge Administration

Staff – Personal Purchases 

Employees of Canaan Valley refuge reside and spend their salaries on daily living expenses in communities 

near the refuge thereby generating impacts within the local economy. Household consumption expenditures 

consist of payments by individuals/households to industries for goods and services used for personal 

consumption. The IMPLAN modeling system contains household consumption spending profiles that account 

for average household spending patterns by income level. These profiles also capture average annual savings 

and allow for leakage of household spending to outside the region. The current approved refuge staff consists of 

nine employees for alternative A (Table H.7). 

Table H.7. Current approved staff (Alternative A).

Position Title

Refuge Manager

Deputy Refuge Manager 

Park Ranger 

Supervisory Wildlife Biologist

Wildlife Biologist 

Wildlife Biologist Term

Law Enforcement Officer

Engineering Equipment Operator 

Administrative Assistant Term 

Based on FY 2008 salary charts, it was estimated that annual salaries for alternative A would total over 

$678,000. Refuge personnel estimate that approximately 60% of their household consumption expenditures 

are made within the local area (Tucker County and the city of Elkins) Table H.8 shows the economic impacts 

associated with spending of salaries in local area by refuge employees under alternative A. For alternative A, 

Appendix H: Economic Impacts of Each Alternative

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-10 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

salary spending by refuge personnel would directly account for $402,700 in local output, 2.9 jobs, and $66,500 in 

personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional $68,600 

in local output, 1 job, and $21,300 in personal income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, 

salary spending by refuge personnel for alternative A would generate total economic impacts of $471,300 in 

local output, 3.9 jobs and $87,800 in personal income. 

Table H.8. Annual local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel (2006$).

 Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects $402,700 $66,500 2.9

Secondary effects $68,600 $21,300 1.0

Total economic impact $471,300 $87,800 3.9

Work-related Purchases 

A wide variety of supplies and services are purchased for refuge operations and maintenance activities. Refuge 

purchases made in Tucker County and the city of Elkins contribute to the local economic impacts associated 

with the refuge. According to refuge records, approximately 63% of the annual non-salary budget expenditures 

are spent on goods and services purchased in Tucker County and the city of Elkins. Major local expenditures 

include: supplies and services related to building maintenance and construction; auto repairs, parts, and fuel; 

and utilities. Average annual non-salary expenditures for alternative A are anticipated to be $151,000. Table 

H.9 shows the economic impacts associated with work related expenditures in Tucker County and the city of 

Elkins. For alternative A, work related expenditures would directly account for almost $72,500 in local output, 

0.9 of a job, and $21,300 in personal income in the local economy. Accounting for both the direct and secondary 

effects, work related purchases for alternative A would generate total economic impacts of $94,900 in local 

output, 1.2 jobs and $28,400 in personal income. 

Table H.9. Local economic impacts of refuge related purchases for Alternative A (2006$).

 Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects $72,500 $21,300 0.9

Secondary effects $22,400 $7,100 0.3

Total economic impact $94,900 $28,400 1.2

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative A

Table H.10 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts of all refuge management activities for 

alternative A in Tucker County and the city of Elkins. Under alternative A, refuge management activities 

directly related to all refuge operations generate an estimated $1.62 million in local output, 15.6 jobs and 

$344,600 in personal income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge 

activities would generate total economic impacts of $1.95 million in local output, 20.9 jobs and $442,700 in 

personal income. In 2006, total personal income was estimated at $666.3 million and total employment was 

estimated at 9,488 jobs for Tucker County and the city of Elkins (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2008, 

IMPLAN 2006 data). Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under alternative A represent 

less than one percent of total income (0.1%) and total employment (0.2%) in the overall Tucker County and the 

city of Elkins economy. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the Canaan Valley 

communities near the refuge such as Davis, Thomas and Parsons where most of the refuge public use-related 

economic activity occurs. 

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-11

Table H.10. Economic impacts of all refuge management activities for Alternative A (2006$).

 Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Refuge revenue sharing

Direct effects $85,300 $28,400 1

Total effects $103,100 $33,900 1.2

Refuge administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects $475,200 $87,800 3.8

Total effects $566,200 $116,200 5.1

Public use activities

Direct effects $1,062,000 $227,700 10.8

Total effects $1,278,500 $292,600 14.6

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects $1,622,500 $344,000 15.6

Total effects $1,947,800 $442,700 20.9

Economic Impacts of Alternative B

Impacts from Refuge Revenue Sharing

Same as alternative A. 

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management

Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy

Changes in refuge management activities can affect recreational opportunities offered and visitation levels. 

Table H.11 shows the estimated visitation levels associated with each visitor activity for alternative B. Under 

alternative B, visitation is anticipated to slightly increase for all activities compared to alternative A (Table 

H.5). The slight increases in visitation levels are due to modifying hunting management to allow more rifle 

hunting and assist hunters by establishing a remote area white-tailed deer pick-up shuttle system, officially 

opening the refuge to fishing, connection of some current trails, and installation of observation platforms.

Table H.11. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for Alternative B.

Visitor activity

Total 

number of 

visits

Percentage 

of non-local 

visits (%)

Total number 

of non-local 

visits

Number of 

hours spent 

at refuge

Number of nonlocal visitor 

days1

Consumptive-use 

Fishing 1,575 60% 945 4 473

Big game hunting 4,410 92% 4,057 8 4,057

Waterfowl and migratory bird hunting 451 95% 428 8 428

Upland game hunting 378 95% 359 8 359

Nonconsumptive-use 

Nature trails/ other wildlife observation/

office visits 32,550 70% 22,785 4 11,393

Total 39,364 28,575 16,710

1

 One visitor day = 8 hours.

Appendix H: Economic Impacts of Each Alternative

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-12 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Table H.12 summarizes the total economic impacts associated with current non-local fishing, hunting (all 

types), and non-consumptive visitation for alternative B. Non-local refuge visitors would spend over $1.27 

million in Tucker County and the city of Elkins annually. This spending would directly account for $1.07 million 

in local output, 10.9 jobs, and $230,100 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier 

effects would generate an additional $218,700 in local output, 3.8 jobs, and $65,500 in personal income. 

Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local visitors for alternative B would 

generate total economic impacts of $1.29 million in local output, 14.7 jobs and $295,600 in personal income. 

Table H.12. Annual impacts of non-local visitor spending for Alternative B (2006$).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects 

Fishing $21,700 $4,500 0.2

Hunting $235,700 $45,800 2

Wildlife viewing $816,800 $179,900 8.7

 Direct effects total $1,074,100 $230,100 10.9

Secondary effects 

Fishing $4,400 $1,300 0.1

Hunting $43,800 $13,200 0.7

Wildlife viewing $170,500 $51,000 3

Secondary effects total $218,700 $65,500 3.8

Total effects 

Fishing $26,100 $5,800 0.3

Hunting $279,500 $59,000 2.7

Wildlife viewing $987,300 $230,800 11.7

Total economic impact $1,292,900 $295,600 14.7

Impacts from Refuge Administration

Staff – Personal Purchases 

Proposed staff for alternative B includes all approved staff positions (alternative A, Table H.7) plus four 

additional positions. The new positions are for a Refuge Operations Specialist, Visitor Services Professional, 

Biological Technician, and permanent Seasonal Maintenance worker. Table H.13 shows the economic impacts 

associated with spending of salaries in Tucker County and the city of Elkins by refuge employees under 

alternative B. For alternative B, salary spending by refuge personnel would directly account for $514,000 in 

local output, 3.7 jobs, and $84,700 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects 

would generate an additional $87,200 in local output, 1.3 jobs, and $27,100 in personal income. Accounting for 

both the direct and secondary effects, salary spending by refuge personnel for alternative B would generate 

total economic impacts of over $601,200 in local output, 5 jobs and $111,800 in personal income. Due to the 

increased staffing levels for alternative B, the associated economic effects of staff salary spending would 

generate $129,900 more in local output, 1 more job, and $24,000 more in personal income than alternative A. 

Table H.13. Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel for Alternative B (2006$).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects $514,000 $84,700 3.7

Secondary effects $87,200 $27,100 1.3

Total economic impact $601,200 $111,800 5.0

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-13

Work-related Purchases 

Non-salary expenditures for alternative B are anticipated to increase in proportion with the salary increase 

for the new staff positions for a total annual non-salary budget $200,000. Table H.14 shows the economic 

impacts associated with work related expenditures in Tucker County and the city of Elkins for alternative 

B. These estimates assume 63% of the non-salary budget will be spent on goods and services purchased in 

Tucker County and the city of Elkins (same as current and alternative A). Work related expenditures under 

alternative B would directly account for $96,000 in local output, 1.2 jobs, and $28,200 in personal income in the 

local economy. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, work related purchases for alternative 

B would generate a total economic impact of $125,700 in local output, 1.6 jobs and $37,600 in personal income. 

Due to the increased non-salary expenditures for alternative B, the associated economic effects of work related 

purchases would generate $30,800 more in local output, 0.4 more of a job, and $9,200 more in personal income 

than alternative A. 

Table H.14. Local economic impacts of refuge related purchases for Alternative B (2006$).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects $96,000 $28,200 1.2

Secondary effects $29,700 $9,400 0.4

Total economic impact $125,700 $37,600 1.6

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative B

Table H.15 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts of all refuge management activities for 

alternative B in Tucker County and the city of Elkins. Under alternative B, refuge management activities 

directly related to all refuge operations generate an estimated $1.7 million in local output, 16.8 jobs and 

$371,400 in personal income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge 

activities would generate total economic impacts of $2.12 million in local output, 22.5 jobs and $478,900 in 

personal income. Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under alternative B represent less 

than one percent of total income (0.1%) and total employment (0.2%) in the overall Tucker County and the city 

of Elkins economy. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the Canaan Valley 

communities near the refuge such as Davis, Thomas and Parsons where most of the refuge public use-related 

economic activity occurs.

Table H.15. Summary of all refuge management activities for Alternative B (2006$).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Direct effects $85,300 $28,400 1

Total effects $103,100 $33,900 1.2

Refuge administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects $610,000 $112,900 4.9

Total effects $726,900 $149,400 6.6

Public use activities

Direct effects $1,074,100 $230,100 10.9

Total effects $1,292,900 $295,600 14.7

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects $1,769,400 $371,400 16.8

Total effects $2,122,900 $478,900 22.5

Appendix H: Economic Impacts of Each Alternative

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-14 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Table H.16 summarizes the change in economic effects associated with refuge operations under alternative B 

as compared to alternative A. Due to increases in refuge administration and visitation, alternative B would 

generate $175,100 more in local output, 1.6 additional jobs and $36,300 more in personal income as compared to 

alternative A.

Table H.16. Change in economic impacts under Alternative B compared to Alternative A (2006$).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Direct effects $0 $0 0

Total effects $0 $0 0

Refuge Administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects +$134,800 +$25,100 1.1

Total effects +$160,700 +$33,200 1.5

Public use activities

Direct effects +$12,100 +$2,400 +0.1

Total effects +$14,400 +$3,100 +0.1

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects +$146,900 +$27,500 1.2

Total effects +$175,100 +$36,300 1.6

Economic Impacts of Alternative C

Impacts from Refuge Revenue Sharing

Same as alternative A. 

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management

Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy

Table H.17 shows the estimated visitation levels associated with each visitor activity for alternative C. Under 

alternative C, slight increases in visitation are anticipated for all activities as compared to alternative A (Table 

H.5). The slight increases in visitation levels are due to modifying hunting management to assist hunters by 

establishing a remote area white-tailed deer pick-up shuttle system, officially opening the refuge to fishing, 

connection of some current trails (more than alternative B), and installation of observation platforms. 

Table H.17. Estimated annual refuge visitation by visitor activity for Alternative C.

Visitor activity

Total 

number 

of visits

Percentage 

of non-local 

visits (%)

Total number 

of non-local 

visits

Number of 

hours spent 

at refuge

Number of nonlocal visitor days1

Consumptive use 

Fishing 1,650 60% 990 4 495

Big game hunting 4,620 92% 4,250 8 4,250

Waterfowl/migratory bird hunting 473 95% 449 8 449

Upland game hunting 396 95% 376 8 376

Non-consumptive use

Nature trails/ other wildlife observation/

office visits 34,100 70% 23,870 4 11,935

Total 41,239 29,936 17,506

1

 One visitor day = 8 hours.

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-15

Table H.18 summarizes the total economic impacts associated with current non-local fishing, hunting (all 

types), and non-consumptive visitation for alternative C. Non-local refuge visitors would spend over 1.33 million 

in Tucker County and the city of Elkins annually. This spending would directly account for $1.17 million in local 

output, 11.9 jobs, and $250,500 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects 

would generate an additional $238,100 in local output, 4.1 jobs, and $71,300 in personal income. Accounting 

for both the direct and secondary effects, spending by non-local visitors for alternative C would generate total 

economic impacts of $1.41 million in local output, 16 jobs and $321,800 in personal income. 

Table H.18. Annual impacts of non-local visitor spending for Alternative C (2006$).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects 

Fishing $22,700 $4,700 0.2

Hunting $246,900 $47,900 2.1

Wildlife viewing $898,400 $197,800 9.6

 Direct effects total $1,168,100 $250,500 11.9

Secondary effects 

Fishing $4,600 $1,400 0.1

Hunting $45,900 $13,800 0.7

Wildlife viewing $187,500 $56,100 3.3

Secondary effects total $238,100 $71,300 4.1

Total effects 

Fishing $27,300 $6,100 0.3

Hunting $292,900 $61,800 2.8

Wildlife viewing $1,086,000 $253,900 12.9

Total economic impact $1,406,200 $321,800 16.0

Impacts from Refuge Administration

Staff – Personal Purchases 

Proposed staff for alternative C includes all current staff positions (alternative A, Table H.7) plus five 

additional positions. The new positions are: two Visitor Services Professionals; Biological Technician; 

Maintenance Worker; Refuge Operations Specialist. Table H.19 shows the economic impacts associated with 

spending of salaries in Tucker County and the city of Elkins by refuge employees under alternative C. For 

alternative C, salary spending by refuge personnel would directly account for $554,600 in local output, 4 jobs, 

and $91,400 in personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an 

additional $94,100 in local output, 1.4 jobs, and $29,200 in personal income. Accounting for both the direct and 

secondary effects, salary spending by refuge personnel for alternative C would generate total economic impacts 

of $648,700 in local output, 5.4 jobs and $120,600 in personal income. Due to the increased staffing levels for 

alternative C, the associated economic effects of staff salary spending would generate $177,400 more in local 

output, 1.5 more jobs, and $32,800 more in personal income than alternative A. 

Table H.19. Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel for Alternative C (2006$).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects $554,600 $91,400 4.0

Secondary effects $94,100 $29,200 1.4

Total economic impact $648,700 $120,600 5.4

Appendix H: Economic Impacts of Each Alternative

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-16 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Work-related Purchases 

Non-salary expenditures for alternative C are anticipated to increase in proportion with the salary increase 

for the new staff positions for a total annual non-salary budget of $250,000. Table H.20 shows the economic 

impacts associated with work related expenditures in Tucker County and the city of Elkins for alternative C. 

These estimates assume 63% of the non-salary budget will be spent on goods and services purchased in Tucker 

County and the city of Elkins (same as current and alternative A). Work related expenditures under alternative 

B would directly account for $119,900 in local output, 1.5 jobs, and $35,200 in personal income in the local 

economy. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, work related purchases for alternative B would 

generate a total economic impact of $157,100 in local output, 2 jobs and $47,000 in personal income. Due to the 

increased non-salary expenditures for alternative B, the associated economic effects of work related purchases 

would generate $62,200 more in local output, 0.8 more of a job, and $18,600 more in personal income than 

alternative A. 

Table H.20. Local economic impacts of refuge related purchases for Alternative C (2006$).

 Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects $119,900 $35,200 1.5

Secondary effects $37,200 $11,800 0.5

Total economic impact $157,100 $47,000 2

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative C

Table H.21 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts of all refuge management activities for 

alternative C in Tucker County and the city of Elkins. Under alternative C, refuge management activities 

directly related to all refuge operations generate an estimated $1.93 million in local output, 18.4 jobs and 

$405,500 in personal income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge 

activities would generate total economic impacts of $2.32 million in local output, 24.6 jobs and $523,200 in 

personal income. Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under alternative C represent less 

than one percent of total income (0.1%) and total employment (0.3%) in the overall Tucker County and the city 

of Elkins economy. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the Canaan Valley 

communities near the refuge such as Davis, Thomas and Parsons where most of the refuge public use-related 

economic activity occurs.

Table H.21. Summary of all refuge management activities for Alternative C (2006$).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Direct effects $85,300 $28,400 1

Total effects $103,100 $33,900 1.2

Refuge administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects $674,500 $126,600 5.5

Total effects $805,800 $167,600 7.4

Public use activities

Direct effects $1,168,100 $250,500 11.9

Total effects $1,406,200 $321,800 16.0

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects $1,927,900 $405,500 18.4

Total effects $2,315,100 $523,200 24.6

Table H.22 summarizes the change in economic effects associated with refuge operations under alternative 

C as compared to alternative A. Due to increases in refuge administration and visitation, alternative C would 

generate $367,300 more in local output, 3.7 additional jobs and $80,600 more in personal income as compared to 

alternative A.

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-17

Table H.22. Change in economic impacts under Alternative C compared to Alternative A (2006$).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Direct effects $0 $0 0

Total effects $0 $) 0

Refuge Administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects +$199,300 +$38,800 +1.7

Total effects +$239,600 +$51,400 +2.3

Public use activities

Direct effects +$106,100 +$22,800 +1.1

Total effects +$127,700 +$29,200 +1.4

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects +$305,400 +$61,600 +2.8

Total effects +$36,.300 +$80,600 +3.7

Economic Impacts of Alternative D

Impacts from Refuge Revenue Sharing

Same as alternative A. 

Impacts from Refuge Administration

Staff – Personal Purchases 

Proposed staff for alternative D includes all approved staff positions (alternative A, Table H.7) plus two 

additional positions. The new positions are for a permanent Seasonal Maintenance worker and an additional 

Law Enforcement Officer. Table H.23 shows the economic impacts associated with spending of salaries in 

Tucker County and the city of Elkins by refuge employees under alternative D. For alternative D, salary 

spending by refuge personnel would directly account for $454,000 in local output, 3.2 jobs, and $74,800 in 

personal income in the local economy. The secondary or multiplier effects would generate an additional $77,100 

in local output, 1.2 jobs, and $23,900 in personal income. Accounting for both the direct and secondary effects, 

salary spending by refuge personnel for alternative D would generate total economic impacts of over $531,100 

in local output, 4.4 jobs and $98,700 in personal income. Due to the increased staffing levels for alternative D, 

the associated economic effects of staff salary spending would generate $59,800 more in local output, half a job, 

and $10,900 more in personal income than alternative A. 

Table H.23. Local economic impacts of salary spending by refuge personnel for Alternative D (2006$).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Direct effects $454,000 $74,800 3.2

Secondary effects $77,100 $23,900 1.2

Total economic impact $531,100 $98,700 4.4

Work-related Purchases 

Same as alternative A. 

Impacts from Public Use and Access Management

Refuge Visitor Expenditures in Local Economy

Same as alternative A. 

Appendix H: Economic Impacts of Each Alternative

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-18 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

Summary of Economic Impacts for Alternative D

Table H.24 summarizes the direct and total economic impacts of all refuge management activities for 

alternative D in Tucker County and the city of Elkins. Under alternative D, refuge management activities 

directly related to all refuge operations generate an estimated $1.67 million in local output, 15.9 jobs and 

$352,300 in personal income in the local economy. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge 

activities would generate total economic impacts of $2.01 million in local output, 21.4 jobs and $453,600 in 

personal income. Total economic impacts associated with refuge operations under alternative D represent less 

than one percent of total income (0.1%) and total employment (0.2%) in the overall Tucker County and the city 

of Elkins economy. Total economic effects of refuge operations play a much larger role in the Canaan Valley 

communities near the refuge such as Davis, Thomas and Parsons where most of the refuge public use-related 

economic activity occurs.

Table H.24. Summary of all refuge management activities for Alternative D (2006$).

Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Direct effects $85,300 $28,400 1

Total effects $103,100 $33,900 1.2

Refuge administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects $526,500 $96,100 4.1

Total effects $626,000 $127,00 5.6

Public use activities

Direct effects $1,062,000 $227,700 10.8

Total effects $1,278,500 $292,600 14.6

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects $1,673,800 $352,300 15.9

Total effects $2,007,600 $453,600 21.4

Table H.25 summarizes the change in economic effects associated with refuge operations under alternative 

D as compared to alternative A. Due to increases in refuge administration; alternative D would generate 

$59,800 more in local output, half of an additional job and $10,900 more in personal income as compared to 

alternative A.

Table H.25. Change in economic impacts under Alternative D compared to Alternative A (2006$).

 Local output Personal income Employment (# jobs)

Refuge Revenue Sharing

Direct effects $0 $0 0

Total effects $0 $0 0

Refuge Administration (staff salary spending and work related purchases)

Direct effects +$51,300 +$8,300 0.3

Total effects +$59,800 +$10,900 0.5

Public use activities

Direct effects $0 $0 0

Total effects $0 $0 0

Aggregate impacts

Direct effects +$51,300 +$8,300 0.3

Total effects +$59,800 +$10,900 0.5

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-19

Summary and Conclusions

Under alternative A, refuge management activities directly related to all refuge operations generate an 

estimated $1.62 million in local output, 15.6 jobs and $344,000 in personal income in the local economy (Table 

H.10). Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, all refuge activities would generate total economic 

impacts of $1.95 million in local output, 20.9 jobs and $442,700 in personal income. Total economic impacts 

associated with refuge operations across all alternatives represent less than one percent of total income and 

total employment in the overall Tucker County and the city of Elkins economy. Total economic effects of refuge 

operations play a much larger role in the Canaan Valley communities near the refuge such as Davis, Thomas 

and Parsons where most of the refuge public use-related economic activity occurs.

References Cited

Carver, E, and Caudill J., 2007, Banking on Nature 2006–The economic benefits to local communities of 

 National Wildlife Refuge visitation: Washington D.C., U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

 and Wildlife Service, Division of Economics. 

City of Elkins, West Virginia, 2008. < http://www.cityofelkinswv.com/index.html>

Darst, Paul, 2008. Bang for the Buck. The State Journal. 

http://www.statejournal.com/story.cmf?func=viewstory&storyid=47206

Dean Runyan Associates, 2007. Economic Impact of Travel on West Virginia. Report prepared for the West 

 Virginia Division of Tourism. South Charleston, West Virginia. http://www.deanrunyan.com/wv06.pdf

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc., 2006. Year 2006 IMPLAN data files, www.implan.com

Olson, D., and Lindall, S., 1999, IMPLAN professional software, analysis and data guide: Minnesota IMPLAN 

 Group, Inc. 

Southwick Associates, 2007a. Hunting in America: An Economic Engine and Conservation Powerhouse. 

 Produced for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies with funding from the Multistate 

 Conservation Grant Program.

Southwick Associates, 2007b. Sportfishing in America: An Economic Engine and Conservation Powerhouse. 

 Produced for the American Sportfishing Association with funding from the Multistate Conservation 

 Grant Program.

Stynes, D. 1998, Guidelines for measuring visitor spending: Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism 

 Resources, Michigan State University. 

Town of Davis, West Virginia. 2006. <http://www.daviswva.com/index.html>

Tucker County Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2006. < http://www.canaanvalley.org/>

U.S. Census Bureau, 2008, Census 2000 Summary file, American FactFinder, www.census.gov

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), 2008, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information 

 System, www.bea.gov

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2003, 2001 National and state 

 economic impacts of wildlife watching–Addendum to the 2001 National survey of fishing, hunting and 

 wildlife-associated recreation: Report 2001-2.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Fishing and Hunting 

 Recruitment and Retention in the U.S. from 1990 to 2005. Report 2001-11

Appendix H: Economic Impacts of Each Alternative

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
H-20 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI), Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and U.S. Department of Commerce 

 (USDOC), U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- 

 Associated Recreation.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Canaan Valley NWR Profile, 

 2008. <http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=51630>

West Virginia Rails-to-Trails Council, 2002. <http://www.wvrtc.org/trails/tucker_history.html>

Economic Impacts of Each Alternative
Mushroom

Ken Sturm/USFWS

Appendix I

ESA Section 7 Consultation
Appendix I. ESA Section 7 Consultation I-1

ESA Section 7 Consultation
I-2 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

ESA Section 7 Consultation
Appendix I. ESA Section 7 Consultation I-3

ESA Section 7 Consultation
I-4 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

ESA Section 7 Consultation
Appendix I. ESA Section 7 Consultation I-5

ESA Section 7 Consultation
I-6 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

ESA Section 7 Consultation
Appendix I. ESA Section 7 Consultation I-7

ESA Section 7 Consultation
I-8 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

ESA Section 7 Consultation
Appendix I. ESA Section 7 Consultation I-9

ESA Section 7 Consultation
I-10 Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

ESA Section 7 Consultation
Appendix I. ESA Section 7 Consultation I-11

ESA Section 7 Consultation
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

HC 70 Box 200 

Davis, WV 26260 

304/866 3858 

304/866 3852 FAX

canaanvalley@fws.gov

http://www.fws.gov/canaanvalley/

Federal Relay Service

for the deaf or hard of hearing

1 800/877 8339

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Website

http://www.fws.gov

For National Wildlife Refuge System Information

1 800/344 WILD

May 2010